Mark Shaw QC's decision in Independent Adjudication would allow Non Christians to head up the Christian Union at Exeter University

Andrea Williams

BEN Martin, the Christian student at the centre of the Exeter University Student Guild row over the Human Rights of members of the Christian Union, has today rejected the Independent Adjudication into the case as "unbalanced and selective". He will be seeking a Judicial Review in the High Court.

Mark Shaw QC, the independent adjudicator appointed by Exeter University Strongly criticised the Constitution of Exeter CU because it restricted the membership to Christians, despite the fact its meetings were open to everyone - of all faiths and none. He held it discriminatory that the CU should be run by Christians and held that the Guild policies in forcing the CU to be led by members open to other faiths was "laudable".

Last year, the Student Guild forced the Exeter Christian Union to change its name to Exeter 'Evangelical' Christian Union following one complaint (in a 50 year period) by a student. The Guild also froze the CUs bank account and wrote to them banning them from holding or advertising events on Guild premises.

On January 5, Ben Martin, a member of the Christian Union filed papers at the High Court asking for a Judicial Review of the Guild's actions under the Human Rights Act. He was subsequently informed that the University would require the CU to go through an informal internal adjudication procedure before any external procedure could be followed.

First, the University tried to impose a leading lawyer with strong connections to the National Union of Students on the CU as adjudicator. The process was then delayed to after Easter (a time when students are revising or sitting exams). Following complaints, the University brought in another barrister, this time a QC, Mark Shaw (there is no obligation to appoint a barrister, only an independent person of standing in the community).

Ben Martin said: "The university established an internal appeals process to resolve the dispute and the CU engaged with the process in full seeking a non judicial resolution of the dispute. Out of primarily public funds, the university and Guild had access to leading firms of solicitors and barristers (including QCs) whilst the CU were denied all such assistance.

"Mr Shaw determined that the process should be 'legal' rather than informal as is usually the case, and also decided that the process should deal with substantive and procedural issues of law. He also stated that the CU should be prepared to pay the costs of the university and Guild which could have been more than £50,000."

When the CU complained at the legalised process, asked for an informal process without lawyers and that they should not be subject to costs, Mr Shaw refused.

Mr Martin said: "Any criticism of this process by the CU resulted in a sharp response from Mr Shaw, together with claims that the CU was uncooperative. Only when the CU refused to continue with a process that could bankrupt them, was there a guarantee of no costs.

"Mr Shaw held that the Guild were 'laudable' in their aims, the University had no responsibility for the discrimination against Christians, and that the CU was wrong to require that those leading the CU should be Christians. That position, he said, could be held by anyone of any faith or none, provided they agree to the objectives of the CU!

"In paragraph 92 (4) of his adjudication, Mr Shaw even goes on to suggest that on the Exeter University campus, the 'Welsh Society should be open to Scottish members; the wine society open to teetotal members, the choral society should be open to non-singing members, and the cheerleading society should be open to male members ...'

"I fully co-operated with Mr Shaw and he has treated my fundamental rights of religious association and belief in a derisory fashion. Issues of religious association and freedom of speech are fundamental human rights and not ones on which I, or the CU is prepared to compromise."

The CU at Exeter has always said that taking the matter to Court would be a last resort, but in light of the Independent Adjudication from Mr Shaw, the CU finds itself in a position where it has no other option by to instruct the Human Rights barrister Paul Diamond to instigate Judicial Review proceedings against the University and Guild.

The response from Exeter University can be found on their website. As mentioned on there, Mr Shaw's main conclusions on the dispute are the following:

• The University was right not to 'enter the fray', but to facilitate the ICP.


• Criticism of the University for failing to supervise, condemn and restrain the Guild's constitution or activities are 'misplaced.'


• Mr Martin's consistent refusal properly to engage in the ICP contributed to the failure to reach a mediated resolution.


• The Guild approached the ICP in a spirit of 'genuine conciliation.'


• The result of the students' referendum on the ECU was validly ratified by the Guild.


• The Guild should have been quicker in telling the ECU that its privileges had been reinstated. The decision was taken on 15 December 2006 and the ECU were not told until 4 January 2007.


• It was 'wrong and misleading' for the ECU to file and serve a judicial review claim on 5 January 2007 as if the challenged decision were still extant.


• The Guild has not violated the human rights of the ECU or Ben Martin and could not be adjudged to have done so since it is not classed as a public authority under the Human Rights Act. Nor can the acts of the Guild be attributed to the University so as to make it liable under the Act. The Guild has acted alone and autonomously, not as the University's agent or delegate.


• The University has not breached its statutory supervisory duties.


• The ECU's membership rule and its (stricter) leadership rule breach the Guild's Equal Opportunities Policy (EOP) and its constitution.


• The EOP and constitution strike a 'fair balance' between the competing interests at stake by insisting that society membership (which is funded by the Guild) should be available to all Guild members without discrimination.


• In the autumn term of 2006 the prejudice caused to the ECU by the loss of privileges was both slight and temporary. The ECU would still be entitled, and could not lawfully be prevented, from operating freely and using all non-Guild facilities on campus.


• There has been no breach of the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 ("the 2003 Regulations").


• The forcible change of the ECU's name (from Christian Union) is not unlawful under the Human Rights Act or the wider principles of administrative law. But it would have been 'better and wiser' for the Guild not to have required the change and for it now to undo it.


• Each party must pay its own costs.