University granted anonymity in sexual harassment case

One of Britain’s top universities has been granted anonymity in an employment tribunal over allegations that a senior professor sexually harassed a female colleague.
The institution successfully applied for the order to shield its reputation and that of its staff from media scrutiny. An employment judge approved the request without holding a hearing or considering any arguments or evidence in open court.
The tribunal issued the anonymity order earlier this month – giving no legal reasoning for its decision and imposing no time limit on how long the secrecy should remain in place.
Media organisations, which were not notified or invited to make representations, have condemned the ruling as a worrying breach of the principle of open justice.
The case is similar to a 2019 one in which a tribunal barred publication of the name of a wealthy financier accused of sexually assaulting two female employees. He settled the claims privately on the day the tribunal was due to begin, paying substantial sums to the women, who were then bound by non-disclosure agreements.
When The Times challenged those anonymity orders, the High Court upheld them, ruling that the man’s “honour and reputation” outweighed the public’s right to open justice. The newspaper was permitted to refer to him only as Mr X. One of the women later alleged that the same man had raped her, but he had relocated to the United States and was never questioned by police.
Lawyers representing the complainant in the university case plan to challenge the new anonymity ruling and have requested an urgent appeal hearing.
Media representatives have also criticised the tribunal’s handling of the matter, warning of an increasing shift toward secret justice – particularly as the UK government considers proposals to grant blanket anonymity to police firearms officers.
Sayra Tekin, legal director of the News Media Association, said: “There are no circumstances in which an institution such as a university should be granted anonymity in this way. To do so represents a gross breach of the principles of open justice.
“This – alongside the government’s proposals to create a legal presumption of anonymity for firearms officers facing criminal proceedings – is part of a deeply concerning trend towards secrecy in our courts.
“Public confidence in the judicial system depends on transparency. This drift towards secrecy must be resisted and reversed.”