CHAPTER 6: REVIEW OF THE ZELLICK GUIDELINES
181. The Taskforce received evidence from the NUS, individual universities and other
organisations highlighting concerns about the ongoing relevance of the 1994 report of
the Council for Vice-Chancellors and Principals (CVCP), Final Report of the Task Force
on Student Disciplinary Procedures, commonly known as the Zellick guidelines.
182. The non-statutory Zellick guidelines provided advice to universities on handling
circumstances where a student’s alleged misconduct would also constitute a criminal
offence. Some universities, but not all, continue to use Zellick as the basis for their
internal procedures.
183. The evidence received demonstrated a range of concerns linked to Zellick including:
the guidelines do not reflect important legislative changes such as the Equality Act
2010 and Human Rights Act 1998 and the development of legislation, guidance and
case law which views students as ‘consumers’66.
the guidelines do not adequately reflect that institutions have a duty of care to
students
the guidelines do not reflect the important changes in the technological and social
context within which universities and their students operate. These developments can
also play a role in the incidents that contemporary universities must deal with such as
online abuse and harassment and misuse of social media.
the guidelines are too simplistic and do not reflect the nuances of ‘real life’ incidents
the guidelines recommend that an institution should not invoke disciplinary
proceedings where a victim does not report to the police, if the Crown Prosecution
Service decides not to prosecute or if court proceedings result in an acquittal – this
can result in university inaction
the guidelines do not reflect that more recent case law has established that universities
can invoke disciplinary proceedings on the balance of probabilities (although
universities are not equipped to determine criminality)
the guidelines do not advise on how to support students during the reporting process
the guidelines focus too much on protecting institutions rather than supporting
students
the approach set out in the guidelines discourages students from reporting incidents,
particularly those involving sexual violence
the guidelines are outdated as they assume police investigations/court proceedings
will progress quickly
the guidelines advise a blanket prohibition on investigating and invoking internal
disciplinary procedures if an incident is not reported to the police which could be
direct/indirect discrimination (under the Equality Act 2010) – given the majority of
victims of sexual violence are female and the vast majority do not report incidents to
As summarised in the Competition and Markets Authority Guidance of March 2015 available at
https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/consumer-protection-review-of-higher-education
66
56