top of page

Salford University Refuses To Confirm Or Deny Rape 'Cover-Up' In Court

  • Alistair Finch
  • Oct 28
  • 5 min read
ree

A litigant who sued the University of Salford claims the institution refused to confirm or deny whether it concealed an allegation of rape, after targeted CPR Part 18 questions were met with blanket objections between July and September 2025.


The refusal continued even after the university – which it has also been alleged took no action after a 2024 complaint of homophobic abuse - was offered the option of redacting any personal details or information which could identify the person making a report, or sealed court inspection of documents.


The claim raises issues around safeguarding, possible use of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) and whether institutional secrecy can compound harm to survivors; the Office for Students now bans NDAs in sexual-misconduct cases, increasing public scrutiny of any silence from educational institutions.


Any suggestion that an institution responsible for vulnerable young people might withhold information to protect its own reputation is clearly a serious matter.


The litigant, acting in person in Wigan County Court (claim no L00WN554), served a series of Part 18 requests asking the university to confirm or deny whether NDAs were used, to disclose whether a student had reported a rape, and whether internal records were withheld.


Salford’s lawyers, Hill Dickinson LLP, replied that the requests were disproportionate, risked identifying third parties and strayed into disclosure rather than clarification under PD18.


Hill Dickinson warned that answering might conflict with data-protection obligations and the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act, and said the claimant should apply to the court if he sought compelled answers.


The claimant says the firm’s letters amount to a blanket refusal and that the university declined practical safeguards he offered, such as anonymised answers, redaction or sealed court inspection.


The university is accused of a raft of documentary gaps: missing Report & Support files, partial Subject Access Request exports and case notes the claimant says were withheld, and a counter-allegation that only emerged after a later incident, where the claimant climbed on a roof in protest and refused to come down until data was released.


Those alleged gaps underpin the argument that simple confirm/deny answers would not breach anonymity and would allow the court to assess whether safeguarding failed.


The row is not merely procedural. The claimant says restricted access to support and information caused him to become acutely unwell and contributed to hospitalisation and that the university’s evasions form part of a pattern of institutional gaslighting.


From a regulatory angle, the complaint sits against a changing legal backdrop: the Office for Students published guidance that, since 1 September 2024, bars providers from using NDAs to silence survivors of harassment or sexual misconduct.


That policy shift has been followed by government moves to tighten restrictions on NDAs in higher education and workplaces, a change campaigners welcomed as protecting survivors from enforced silence.


For feminist and survivor-rights advocates, a university’s unwillingness to answer straightforward questions about NDAs or alleged rape suggests institutional priorities may favour reputation over safety, a concern echoed in sector debates after high-profile cover-up scandals.


The university’s public pages stress formal routes for reporting sexual harassment and misconduct and point students to the Report It system; the vice-chancellor, Professor Nic Beech, is named as the institution’s chief executive.


Hill Dickinson counters that many of the claimant’s questions are disproportionate, may identify victims or require searches across broad communications, and that Part 18 is not the mechanism for wide-ranging document disclosure.


Legally the dispute highlights a friction point between transparency and confidentiality: Practice Direction 18 requires objections to be particularised and proportionate, while Part 31 governs disclosure obligations; courts must balance those duties.


The claimant stated that they would apply to the court under PD18 for orders compelling question-by-question answers and for sealed inspection where necessary, and has warned they will ask the court to draw adverse inferences if the defendant persists in silence.


That tactic aims to force a judicial weighing of whether anonymity concerns genuinely prevent basic admissions, or whether procedural objections are being used to avoid uncomfortable facts coming to light.


For campaigners the case is emblematic of a wider trend: universities grappling with safeguarding failures while operating partnerships with police and local agencies, sometimes creating conflicts of interest that complicate independent scrutiny. The claim was struck out after what the claimant has described as procedural manoeuvres that benefited the defendant to protect Greater Manchester Police from being added to the claim as an interested party regarding 3rd party victimisation, which the claimant states was motivated by institutional entanglement between GMP and the university, and shared interests in preventing a scandal.


To those who prioritise survivor safety, regulatory changes mean silence is harder to justify; if institutions cannot use NDAs to obscure wrongdoing, then transparent answers to targeted legal questions are a minimum accountability requirement.


The University of Salford’s published policy expressly states it will not use non-disclosure agreements in complaints relating to harassment or sexual misconduct and confirms it has signed the voluntary ‘Can’t Buy My Silence’ pledge.


Yet in private court correspondence the university and its lawyers declined to confirm or deny whether a specific allegation of rape had been reported, or whether NDAs or other confidentiality measures had been used, citing data-protection and victim-anonymity concerns even to court only disclosure.


This contrast between public commitments and litigated silence raises urgent questions about whether survivor-centred policy is being matched by practice, and it is a matter the courts and regulators should resolve openly and promptly.


“Until the university ceases its long-held pattern of deflection,” the claimant writes, “there are reasonable grounds to suspect something is being concealed.”


He had sought to put the matter before the court; in a procedural hearing where a judge would decide if Parts 18 and 31 require disclosure, sealed inspection or redaction is required — and whether institutional opacity should count against the defendant. The claim was initially struck out, which the claimant believes amounts to multi-institutional self protectionism to protect the police from potential scandal, but is awaiting appeal.




 

References

Office for Students. “Prevent and address harassment and sexual misconduct” (guidance, incl. section on Non-disclosure agreements), 31 July 2024. https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/for-providers/student-protection-and-support/harassment-and-sexual-misconduct/prevent-and-address-harassment-and-sexual-misconduct/

The Guardian. “Universities in England face fines if they fail to protect students from harassment” by Nadeem Badshah, 31 July 2024. https://www.theguardian.com/education/article/2024/jul/31/universities-in-england-face-fines-if-they-fail-to-protect-students-from-harassment

Pinsent Masons / Out-Law. “New laws to ban NDAs related to sexual misconduct, bullying and harassment in UK universities” (news analysis), 13 February 2025. https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/news/new-laws-to-ban-ndas-related-to-sexual-misconduct-bullying-and-harassment-in-uk-universities?utm_source=chatgpt.com

University of Salford. “Sexual harassment and misconduct” (student advice pages). https://www.salford.ac.uk/current-students/sexual-harassment-and-misconduct

University of Salford. “Nic Beech” (staff profile). https://www.salford.ac.uk/our-staff/nic-beech

Freedom of Speech Code of Practice v4.0 — (states NDAs are prohibited in complaints relating to harassment and sexual misconduct; see section 3.10). PDF link:https://www.salford.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2025-07/Freedom-of-Speech-Code-of-Practice-v-4.0.pdf

Integrated Report 2022 — (states the University “have signed the voluntary Can’t Buy My Silence pledge and commit to not using Non-Disclosure Agreements”). PDF link:https://www.salford.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2022-12/Financial%20Report%202022.pdf



The above article is a guest contribution, and the views and opinions expressed are not necessarily those of The Prole Star

 

 

Comments

© 2025 by "The Prole Star".

bottom of page