Nazir Afzal OBE launches part one of the independent review following the death of Professor Jason Arday

On Friday 4 September, the University announced in broad terms how the review process following the death of Professor Jason Arday will work. A statement was also published on the University website.

We explained that part one will examine the support, interventions and protections available to Professor Jason Arday, and that the University Council had agreed to appoint Nazir Afzal OBE to serve as the independent lead of this part. 

The University Council has now agreed Mr Afzal’s terms of reference for part one of the review.

Anyone who wishes to provide evidence for part one can do so by emailing him directly at [email protected].
 

Part One

Support, interventions and welfare protections

Terms of Reference

A note from Nazir Afzal OBE leading the Review

I have agreed to lead the first part of the University’s review. These are the terms I intend to work to. I have written them in ordinary English, because terms of reference shape the character of a review more than any other single thing and I would rather be held to my own words.

Four things need saying before the formal text begins.

What this review cannot do

It cannot say why Professor Arday died. That question belongs to the Coroner, who can compel evidence, who sits in public, and who will reach conclusions I have no business anticipating. Anyone reading this in the hope that I will supply that answer should stop now and wait for the inquest.

What I can do is narrower and still worth doing. I can establish what the University knew about his circumstances, when it knew it, what it did, and whether what it did was reasonable on the information in front of it at the time.

Hindsight

Reviews like this one carry a standing temptation. You know the ending, so you read the file backwards, and every missed signal looks obvious because you already know what it was a signal of. Findings produced that way feel satisfying and teach an organisation nothing, because no institution can act on the instruction to have known in March what became clear in August.

So, I will test decisions against what was known and knowable when they were taken. Where the University fell short of that standard I will say so, in plain terms, naming the decision and the point at which it could have gone differently. Where people did what they reasonably could with what they had, I will say that too, and I expect that to be an unpopular sentence in some quarters. I would rather write it than write something more comfortable that happens not to be true.

The people I will be speaking to

Some of them will be frightened. Colleagues who made decisions in July and August are living with the outcome, and a number will be worried about their jobs, their reputations and what the Coroner may ask them later. That fear is understandable and it is corrosive to a review, because frightened people give careful evidence rather than truthful evidence.

I will do what I can about this. Nobody who gives evidence candidly will be criticised by me for having given it. Where I have to criticise a decision I will criticise the decision, but I will not treat honesty in the review room as an aggravating factor. I have asked the University to say the same in writing, and section 12 records that undertaking.

Beyond that, one further point. Professor Arday was autistic, he was Black, and he was under a sustained public attack that included ridicule of his personal history. Any competent review of how an employer supported him has to engage with all three of those facts rather than treating them as context. I have said so explicitly in the scope, because in my experience things that are not written down do not get examined.

Nazir Afzal OBE
Leading Part One
 
1. What this document is

1.1 These are the terms of reference for Part One of the independent review established by the University Council following the death of Professor Jason Arday on 14 August 2026. They sit within the Council-approved framework and under the overarching terms that apply to both Parts. Where anything here appears to conflict with the overarching terms, the overarching terms win, and the Review Lead will ask the Council  to resolve the discrepancy under section 20.

1.2  The Review Lead’s note above is not an operative provision. It explains how he intends to approach the work. Sections 1 to 20 are the operative terms themselves.

1.3  Part Two is a separate exercise with a separate chair, a panel and a longer timetable. Section 9 explains how the two fit together.

2. What Part One is for

2.1  Part One exists to examine the support, interventions and welfare protections available to Professor Arday in the period before his death, and to say whether the University’s decisions, actions, communications and systems were reasonable and appropriate given what it knew or ought to have known at the time.

2.2  It is a learning exercise. Its purpose is to produce findings the University can act on quickly, and recommendations specific enough that somebody can be held to delivering them.

2.3  Where the review finds that something went wrong, it will say what, when, and who was responsible for it. Learning reviews that decline to identify anything or anyone tend to produce recommendations addressed to nobody in particular, which is how institutions absorb criticism without changing.

3. What Part One is not for

3.1  It will not investigate Professor Arday. The allegations about his thesis, his qualifications, his honorary appointments and his account of his own life are not for this review to determine, and it will not reach a view on whether any of them were true.

3.2  It will not determine legal liability, whether the University’s or anyone else’s, and it is not a disciplinary, grievance, capability, research-misconduct or employment process. If the findings suggest that some separate process is warranted, the review will say so and stop there.

3.3  It will not duplicate or pre-empt the Coroner. See section 8.

3.4  It will not adjudicate the conduct of third parties. Journalists, publications, individual critics and campaigning organisations are outside the remit. They enter the review only as part of the environment the University was responding to, and the question asked about them is what the University knew of the pressure he was under, not whether that pressure was fair.

3.5  It is not a disclosure exercise. Material gathered is gathered for the review.

4. The question

4.1  Everything below is in service of a single question:
On the information reasonably available to the University at each relevant stage, were there reasonably practicable steps it could and should have taken, and did not?

4.2  The review will answer it in four parts, and the report will be structured the same way:

• what the University did;
• what the University could have done;
• how much the gap between those two matters;
• what needs to change.

4.3  The third of those is the one reviews usually skip. A departure from policy that made no practical difference is worth a sentence. A departure that removed the last realistic opportunity to intervene is worth a chapter. The review intends to distinguish between them rather than presenting every finding at the same volume.

5. The period under review

5.1  The main period runs from the point at which the University first received, or otherwise became aware of, any complaint, allegation or press enquiry concerning Professor Arday’s scholarship, qualifications or personal account, through to his death on 14 August 2026.

5.2  No start date is fixed in these terms, because it is not yet known. The University’s own records will establish when the first complaint or enquiry landed and with whom, and that date becomes the start of the period. The working assumption, on what is publicly known, is that it falls somewhere in 2025. If the records show it was earlier, the period is earlier.

5.3  Two extensions apply.

5.4  First, the review will look at the nine days between his resignation on 5 August 2026 and his death on 14 August. Those days sit inside the period and are regarded as central rather than peripheral, for the reasons set out at 6.5.

5.5  Second, the review will look at the University’s conduct in the weeks after his death, to the end of September 2026, covering its contact with the family, its support of staff and students, its public statements, and whether it took immediate protective steps for anyone else it knew to be at risk. Postvention is part of welfare practice and belongs in a welfare review.

5.6  The review may reach further back where an earlier event is necessary to understand the support arrangements he had. It will not use that latitude to stray into the appointment process itself, which belongs to Part Two.

6. What the review will examine

6.1  The headings below are the areas the review will cover. They are not a closed list, and the review is not obliged to give each of them equal weight.

6.2  What the University knew, and when

This is the spine of the review. It will establish:

• what information the University held about Professor Arday’s health, wellbeing or distress, and in what form;
• when each piece of information arrived, from whom, and who received it;
• whether he asked for help himself, of whom, and what happened next;
• whether colleagues, friends, his College, his union, his lawyers, his family, or anyone else raised concerns, and what was done with them;
• whether clinicians or occupational health were involved at any stage, and on whose initiative;
• how concerns were recorded, or whether they were recorded at all;
• whether information moved between the parts of the institution that needed it, or stopped at departmental, collegiate or professional boundaries;
• whether anyone carried out a risk assessment, at any point, in any form;
• whether the University recognised that risk was rising, and what it did when it did.

The review will pay particular attention to the last three. In reviews of this kind the failure is rarely that nobody knew anything. It is that several people each knew a fragment and no mechanism existed to assemble them.

6.3  The support that was offered

The review will take support in three categories and assess each separately, because they fail in different ways.

Employment and workplace support: line management, workload, leave, adjustments, sickness absence, flexibility, HR involvement, occupational health, counselling and employee assistance, and practical help with the media and reputational pressure he was under.

Mental health and wellbeing: identification of risk, referral, escalation, emergency arrangements, involvement of appropriate professionals, and communication between the services that held relevant information.

Professional support: mentoring, the response of his department and faculty, help in answering criticism of his work, clarity about the processes he was subject to, and access to representation and advice.

For each, the question is not whether provision existed. Almost every university can produce a list of services. The question is whether the support was appropriate, timely, accessible and proportionate to what was happening to him, and whether anyone checked that it had actually reached him.

6.4  The decision to investigate, and how it was handled

The University opened a new investigation into Professor Arday’s qualifications and honorary appointments in early August 2026, and made that fact public. He appears to have resigned within hours. The review will examine:

• how that decision was reached, by whom, and on what advice;
• whether anyone assessed the likely effect on him before it was taken, and if so how;
• whether his known disability and his known circumstances were factored into the decision, its timing, or the way it was communicated;
• what alternatives were considered, including a private process, a paused process, or a differently worded announcement;
• who decided to announce it publicly and what the reasoning was;
• any link between the announcement and the resignation;
• what welfare provision was put in place alongside it, before rather than after.

The review does not start from the position that the investigation should not have happened. A university that receives credible allegations about a professor’s credentials has to act, and there are obvious dangers in an institution that softens its processes according to how fragile a subject appears. That is a real tension and the review will treat it as one. But an employer that opens a process against someone it knows to be under sustained public attack has to think about the welfare consequences at the same time as the governance ones, and the question here is whether anyone did.

6.5  The nine days

Professor Arday resigned on 5 August. He died on 14 August. In between he was no longer an employee of the University or a fellow of his College.

The review will examine what the University did during that period, what it thought it still owed him, and who if anyone believed themselves responsible for him once he had gone. It will also examine whether his resignation was treated as the closing of a file.

To what extent, if any, did the university’s duty of care continue following the resignation, having regard to the circumstances in which the resignation was made and to what the University knew, or ought reasonably to have known, about the individual’s state of distress? Did the University recognise any significance in the resignation in that context and, if not, could it have done so? The review will also consider whether, had the circumstances been understood differently at the time, any different steps could or should reasonably have been taken.

6.6  Disability, race and reasonable adjustments

Professor Arday was autistic and had spoken publicly about it. He was a Black academic, he had said that the campaign against him was racially motivated, and the University was aware that he had said so. The review will examine:

• what the University knew about his disability, and how that knowledge was held and shared;
• whether reasonable adjustments were considered or made, in his employment generally and in the investigatory processes he faced;
• whether the University’s engagement with him was culturally competent and informed by his neurodivergence, or merely procedurally correct;
• how it responded to his allegation of racial motivation, and whether that response was adequate;
• whether the University discharged its obligations under the Equality Act 2010, including the anticipatory duty and the public sector equality duty.

Resistance to the framing of that last set of questions is anticipated, from people who consider them a distraction from the substance of the misconduct allegations. That objection is not accepted. An employer’s duties under the Equality Act do not lapse because the employee is the subject of a serious complaint.

6.7  Ownership, escalation and coordination

For every significant decision in the period the review will establish who took it, what they knew, what advice they had, what alternatives they weighed, whether risk was identified, whether the decision was written down, and whether anybody revisited it as things changed.

Running underneath that is the one question the review regards as the most important: was there anyone whose job it was to hold the whole picture? Not a committee. A person. If the answer is no, then a great many individual decisions may each have been defensible while the overall response was not, and that is a finding about the institution rather than about any of the people in it.

6.8  Media, communications and reputation

The review will look at how the University handled the press interest, what it said publicly and when, how those statements were cleared, whether anyone considered their effect on him, and what practical help he was offered in dealing with coverage that had moved well beyond his academic work into his personal history.

Where the University’s communications strategy and his welfare pulled in different directions, the review will establish how that was resolved and who resolved it.

6.9  Policies and standards

The review will test the University’s conduct against its own policies as they stood at the time, and against what could reasonably be expected of a comparable institution. That includes staff wellbeing and mental health policies, occupational health arrangements, HR and investigatory procedures, safeguarding and risk management, media policy, academic freedom and free speech policy, equality and reasonable adjustment obligations, and health and safety duties.

Universities UK guidance is relevant background rather than a legal standard. Its suicide-prevention guidance argues for a whole-university approach; its postvention guidance presses institutions to conduct serious-incident reviews and to learn from deaths. The review will use both as reference points and say plainly where the University fell short of them, if at all.

Where a policy was followed and the outcome was still poor, that will be treated as a finding about the policy.

7. Causation

7.1  This review does not proceed on any assumption that an act or omission of the University caused or contributed to Professor Arday’s death. The framework governs the work:

The review shall not proceed on the assumption that any act or omission by the University caused or contributed to the death. It shall examine whether, and to what extent, the University’s actions and omissions were reasonable and appropriate in light of the information available to it at the relevant time. Any conclusions concerning causation shall be reached only if specifically within the review’s remit and supported by appropriate evidence.

7.2  The review can make findings that the University did not do something it could have done. That is not the same as finding that the failure caused a death, and the report will be careful to keep the two apart, including in its language and its summary.

7.3  That distinction, however carefully drawn, may be lost the moment the report is reported on. That is not a reason to blur it.

8. The Coroner

8.1  An inquest has been opened. The Coroner’s investigation takes precedence over this review in every respect.

8.2  The review will establish contact with the Coroner’s office at the outset, explain its scope and timetable, and invite any observations. If the Coroner indicates that a line of inquiry risks prejudicing the inquest, it will not be pursued, and the report will record that it was not, and why.

8.3  The review will not seek to determine matters reserved to the Coroner, and will avoid any language that reads as a conclusion on those matters.

8.4  Nothing here prevents the University from taking immediate protective action at any point. If the review finds something during its work that suggests a present risk to a living person, it will be raised with the University at once and will not wait for the report.

9. The boundary with Part Two and with other processes

9.1  Part Two covers recruitment and appointment of senior academic staff, mentoring and support arrangements, institutional oversight, the University’s handling of research misconduct allegations, and support for academics under public scrutiny. Where those subjects arise in the course of Part One they will be examined only so far as necessary to understand the support he received, and the wider material will be handed to the Part Two chair.

9.2  The Review Lead will liaise with the Part Two chair so that the two exercises are complementary, that witnesses are not asked the same questions twice by different people, and that Part Two can build on what Part One establishes rather than starting again. Information may pass between the Parts where relevant and lawful.

9.3  A practical risk is recorded here. Part One reports in three months; Part Two in six from a later start. Whichever reports first will frame the public understanding of both. This report will be written so that it stands on its own without prejudging Part Two’s territory, and the University is encouraged to resist any temptation to treat it as the whole answer.

9.4  Any live disciplinary, misconduct or employment process is separate from this review, and the review will not interfere with it.

10. Jesus College and other bodies

10.1  Professor Arday held a fellowship at Jesus College. The College is a separate legal entity and is not within the University’s control, so the review cannot direct it and these terms do not bind it. However, Jesus College has been invited to cooperate and has agreed to be part of the process.

10.2  The same approach applies to his trade union, to any external adviser or clinician, and to any other body holding relevant information. The review has no power to compel any of them.

11. Evidence and access

11.1  The University has undertaken to give the review prompt and unrestricted access to the records it needs, including email and messaging records, HR files, occupational health material, meeting minutes and notes, communications and press material, legal and governance papers, and calendar and telephone records, subject to the requirements noted in the framework.

11.2  Where a document is withheld, the University will tell the review that it is being withheld, on what ground, and in enough detail for the review to decide whether to contest it.

11.3  Disputes about disclosure go first to the Director of Governance and Compliance  and then, if unresolved within five working days, to the Vice-Chancellor. If a dispute remains unresolved after that, the report will record that material was withheld, the ground relied on, and the effect on the conclusions.

11.4  Legal professional privilege is a genuine right, and the review does not ask the University to waive it lightly. It does ask the University to consider limited waiver where advice bears directly on a welfare decision, and to understand that a report noting the absence of privileged material at a critical juncture may be read in ways the University would not welcome.

11.5  The University has confirmed that all relevant material is preserved and that a document preservation notice has been issued to those who are likely to hold relevant material. The review will ask for written confirmation of the date that suspension took effect.

12. Interviews and cooperation

12.1  The review will decide who to interview. Categories will include the family, colleagues and friends, line managers, heads of department and faculty, HR, occupational health, wellbeing and mental health staff, senior officers of the University, communications staff, those involved in the qualifications and misconduct processes, and relevant external advisers.

12.2  Participation by current staff is expected. The University has confirmed that it will say so in writing and will also confirm that no member of staff will be disadvantaged for giving frank evidence to this review.

12.3  Anyone interviewed may be accompanied by a colleague. Interviews will be recorded and transcribed for minute taking purposes, and the recording will be retained in accordance with the University's document preservation notice after that has been done.

12.4  Evidence to this review is confidential to the review. An interviewee’s evidence will not be passed to the University for employment purposes. The review cannot promise that material will never be disclosable to the Coroner or a court, and will not pretend otherwise; anyone worried about that should take their own advice, and section 15 sets out how the material will be held.

12.5  The review may anonymise individuals in the report where naming them is unnecessary for accountability or public understanding. Senior officers should expect that the more significant the decision, the harder it is to justify anonymity.

13. Fairness to individuals

13.1  Where the review intends to criticise a person or an identifiable role, the substance of the proposed criticism will be put to them in writing, with the evidence relied on, and they will be given a reasonable opportunity to respond before the report is finalised.

13.2  Responses will be considered properly, and the report will be changed where a response shows the review was wrong.

13.3  This process covers criticism of individuals. It is not an opportunity for the University to comment on findings about the institution, and the draft report will not be circulated for institutional comment beyond what factual accuracy checking requires.

13.4  Ten days is allowed for responses in the timetable at section 18. That is short. It is short because the timetable is short, and it is better to say so than to pretend the compression is costless.

14. Professor Arday’s family

14.1  The family will be approached early and given a genuine opportunity to say what they believe this review should look at. Their questions will shape the scope, and where the review decides not to pursue something they have raised, the reasons will be explained to them before the report is published.

14.2  They will be offered a private meeting with the Review Lead, at a time and place of their choosing, and a named point of contact throughout.

14.3  They will see the report before it goes to Council, in confidence and with time to absorb it. No family should learn what an institution has concluded about the last months of a relative’s life from a press release.

14.4  If they would prefer no involvement, that will be respected without pressure, and the offer will remain open.

14.5  There may be other people close to him, including his children’s mother and his friends and colleagues, for whom the loss is severe and who are not next of kin. The review will take a broad view of who counts as bereaved here.

15. Looking after the people who take part

15.1  Some of what this review examines is distressing, and some of the people interviewed will be grieving, frightened, or both.

15.2  Interviewees will be told in advance what will be covered, offered breaks, and given details of support before and after. The University will make independent support available to anyone who takes part, meaning support that does not report back to their line management.

15.3  The review team will be briefed on safe messaging around suicide, and the report will be written in accordance with the Samaritans media guidelines. That constrains how certain matters can be described, and the constraint is accepted.

16. My independence, and who supports me

16.1  I am appointed by the Council. I decide the lines of inquiry, the witnesses, the findings and the wording of the report. Nobody in the University sees my conclusions before they are settled, and nobody has a veto over them.

16.2  I may obtain specialist advice where I need it, including clinical and occupational health expertise.

16.3  As Review Lead, my preference is that I proceed as I have done on previous reviews, without any input from lawyers unless we have to instruct our own for specific advice. I will be using my own team for support.  

16.4  On funding: if insurers meet any part of the cost, that will be stated in the report. Insurer involvement is not improper, but it is the sort of fact that damages a review when it emerges afterwards and barely registers when it is disclosed at the outset.

16.5  My team and I have no connection with the University of Cambridge, with Professor Arday, with his family, or with any of the individuals or organisations involved in the allegations against him. I am Chancellor of the University of Manchester, which gives me a working knowledge of the sector and no interest in this institution. If any conflict emerges during the review I will disclose it to the Vice-Chancellor immediately.

17. Confidentiality and data

17.1  The review will handle a substantial amount of personal and special category data, including health data relating to a person who has died and to living third parties. It will comply with UK data protection law throughout.

17.2  Material will be held on secure systems under the review’s control, access restricted to my team, and a record kept of what was received and from whom. My team and I are registered with the Information Commissioner's Office under the Data Protection Register and are required to maintain secure systems to protect information.

17.3  At the end, the review’s material will be dealt with as the University directs, subject to any requirement of the Coroner and to the retention obligations that apply. Nothing will be destroyed while the university’s document preservation notice is live.

18. Timetable

18.1  The report is due within three months of these Terms of Reference being agreed. The indicative shape is:

• Weeks 1 to 2: Terms published, first document request issued, contact made with the family and the Coroner, contact made with Jesus College.
• Weeks 2 to 4: document review and construction of the chronology.
• Weeks 3 to 8: interviews.
• Week 8: short written note of emerging findings to the Vice-Chancellor (as Chair of Council), so that anything urgent can be acted on immediately rather than waiting for the report.
• Weeks 9 to 10: fairness process under section 13.
• Weeks 11 to 12: final drafting; report to Council.

18.2  Three months is tight and it is deliberate. A welfare review that reports in a year produces recommendations for an institution that has already moved on, and leaves colleagues in limbo for months. The price of speed is that this review goes deep on a narrow question rather than broad on all of them, which is precisely why Part Two exists.

18.3  If disclosure is slow, the clock stops and the review will say so publicly rather than deliver a thin report on time and let the deadline take the blame.

18.4  If the evidence turns out to require more time, the review will ask for it, explain why, and expect the request to be granted.

19. The report, and publication

19.1  The report goes to Council. It will set out the chronology, the findings, and recommendations that name an owner and a deadline. Recommendations without either are decoration.

19.2  It will follow the four-part structure at 4.2: what happened, what could have happened, where practice diverged and why, and what must change.

19.3  Subject to law, privacy, privilege and the welfare of living people, a summary of the findings, the recommendations and the University’s response will be published. The review understands that the University intends to publish this summary.

19.4  Where material is withheld from publication, the report will say that material has been withheld and on what ground. Redaction that leaves no trace of itself is not redaction, it is editing.

19.5 The Council is encouraged to publish the report in full, or as close to full as the law permits. Institutions that publish summaries of critical reports invariably find themselves answering questions about what the summary left out.

20. Changing these terms

20.1  The Review Lead may ask the Council to amend these terms where it is necessary for the effective operation of Part One, and the Council may approve amendments within the agreed framework.

20.2  Any amendment will be recorded, dated, and set out in the report. Terms of reference that change quietly during a review are a familiar way of narrowing an inquiry, and it is better to foreclose the suspicion than to have to answer it.

Nazir Afzal OBE
 

Framework for Part One and Part Two of the Review

1. The proposed Review framework is intended to examine institutional decision-making and organisational processes; identify lessons for the University; as necessary, support the strengthening of welfare and wellbeing; and provide assurance regarding future practice. 
2. Critically, the Review is intended to contribute to healing, trust-building and reconciliation with affected communities and fulfil the University's commitment to openness, learning and change.
3. The Review should be open and frank. It is intended to identify areas for improvement and support institutional change and learning. It is not intended to investigate Jason Arday nor determine liability, replicate the functions of the Coroner, or act as a disclosure exercise.  
4. The Review will be established in two distinct but co-ordinated parts, overseen by an independent lead (Part One) and an independent Chair (Part Two).

Part One

5. Part One of the Review will be asked to examine the support, interventions and welfare protections available to Jason Arday during the relevant period prior to his death, and to consider the decision-making, actions and communications by the University, along with its relevant systems and processes. It will be asked to identify any lessons to be learned and make recommendations as appropriate for further action. 
6. Part One will be undertaken by an external, independent individual such as a King’s Counsel of relevant specialism or similar person of appropriate qualification with substantial experience of complex investigations, inquiries or reviews. Part One is intended to be conducted at pace, with a report anticipated within three months of the appointment of the independent lead.

Part Two

7. Part Two of the Review will address the broader context of Jason Arday’s time at the University, considering the University’s recruitment and appointment processes for senior academic staff; mentoring and support arrangements for such staff once appointed; arrangements for institutional oversight; University responses to allegations of research misconduct (to include relevant policies and procedures alongside sector practice); and support provided to academics under public and media scrutiny. In doing so, the Review will examine the relevance of, and Professor Arday’s interaction with, these processes and arrangements throughout his time at the University. It will be asked to make recommendations as appropriate for potential improvements.
8. Part Two will be chaired by an external, independent individual such as a King’s Counsel of relevant specialism or similar person of appropriate qualification with significant relevant expertise and experience of leading major reviews or investigations, supported by a Panel of six to eight members with relevant expertise drawn from outside the University. Part Two is anticipated to report within six months of its Panel being constituted.
9. Collectively, the Panel's composition should ensure credibility, independence and diversity of expertise. The Panel should include expertise relevant to the issues under examination, anticipated to include (without limitation) higher education leadership; equality matters (particularly those relating to the protected characteristics of race and disability); the experience of Black academics and those with a disability or who are neurodivergent within the University community; governance and institutional decision-making; and relevant academic norms, policies and procedures.

Liaison and reporting

10. It is envisaged that the lead for Part One and the chair for Part Two will liaise, share relevant information as appropriate, and cooperate to ensure that their work is complementary, avoiding duplication or conflict.
11. Subject to applicable legal, privilege, privacy, welfare and confidentiality requirements, the Review will be authorised to seek relevant University records and evidence, and University bodies and officers will be expected to provide reasonable co-operation within their respective powers and responsibilities.
12. Both Parts of the Review will report to Council for further discussion. Part Two will also report to the General Board. The Council (and as appropriate, the General Board) will determine such further action as it deems necessary.
13. It is anticipated that, subject to applicable legal, privilege, privacy, welfare and confidentiality considerations, a summary of the reports received by Council and actions arising will be shared both within the University community and with the general public.