29 - Was a Vulnerable Student Pressured for Evidence?

During the Employment Tribunal involving Bury College, serious questions emerged about how evidence was obtained from Student A, the very student at the centre of the original incident.

Sarah Walton, the College’s Designated Safeguarding Lead and the person responsible for conducting the investigation, admitted under questioning that Student A had refused to come into college for an interview. Despite this, she proceeded to phone him and questioned him anyway, a move that now appears to contradict the principles of safeguarding and fair process, especially considering that, according to the Respondent, Student A was known to be vulnerable and had already left college.

Forcing an Interview on a Reluctant Student?

Sarah Walton told the Tribunal that she had extended an invitation to Student A to attend the College for questioning. He declined. Rather than respecting that choice, she phoned him and questioned him remotely, even though he did not want to be interviewed.

This raises a critical ethical and procedural concern: Was it appropriate to pursue questioning once a vulnerable student had declined? If the student had made it known he did not want to be interviewed, then continuing that line of inquiry, especially without any formal safeguards in place, could be seen as pressure rather than a voluntary contribution.

Can the Evidence Be Considered Reliable?

This line of conduct invites a troubling question: Can anything Student A said during that call be considered reliable evidence? Or did he say what he thought was needed simply to end a conversation he never wanted to have in the first place?

In a formal setting, investigators are expected to create a safe, voluntary, and clearly consented space for testimony. Vulnerable students, especially those with known difficulties or disabilities, should never feel pressured to participate in investigatory processes. If they do participate, those interviews should follow structured protocols; certainly not be carried out over the phone after a refusal.


The safeguarding risks in this situation are substantial:

  • There is no independent record of the call, no audio, transcript, or second person present to verify what was said or how the conversation was conducted.

  • There was no adult present to support Student A during the questioning, despite his known vulnerabilities.

  • Student A had already disengaged from college life, having left to start a job, making any involvement in the process entirely voluntary.

  • Most critically, if Student A had experienced emotional distress or a safeguarding crisis during or after the unexpected questioning, Sarah Walton would have had no way to reach him quickly or intervene in person. Conducting a surprise phone interview with a vulnerable former student, now off-site and outside the College’s direct duty of care, left no contingency plan in place should the conversation have triggered a harmful reaction.


Implications for the Tribunal

For the Tribunal Judge, this incident casts doubt not only on the reliability of the testimony extracted through that call, but also on the professional judgment of the investigator. If a safeguarding lead failed to respect the autonomy and wellbeing of a vulnerable young person, just to obtain a statement to use in disciplinary proceedings, this undermines both the fairness of the investigation and the ethical integrity of the College’s process.

Furthermore, if testimony is gathered under these questionable circumstances, then the credibility of that evidence must be carefully scrutinised. The Claimant, who always maintained that he repeated the word as a question, not as an insult, may have been subjected to dismissal on the basis of evidence that should never have been relied on in the first place.

A Broader Pattern of Inconsistency?

This incident also fits into a broader theme exposed during tribunal: a pattern of inconsistency, confirmation bias, and retrospective justification by Bury College. From failing to interview other student witnesses in accordance with ACAS guidance, to selectively quoting College policies only against the Claimant, to ignoring prior informal resolution, and now, appearing to pressure a student for testimony, the fairness of the entire process is under intense scrutiny.

Conclusion

In employment disputes, process matters as much as the facts. When the facts are gathered in a way that bypasses consent, disregards safeguarding, or pressures witnesses, the process becomes flawed, and that flaw could be fatal to the College’s defence.

Whether the Tribunal ultimately finds in favour of the Claimant or not, the Judge will have to consider: Was this investigation fair? Was it ethical? And can the evidence relied on be trusted, especially when it may have been extracted from a vulnerable young person who said no, but was questioned anyway.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Beyond the Headlines: What the Tribunal Really Showed About Bury College’s Case

Recent local coverage of the unfair dismissal tribunal involving a Bury College lecturer painted a simplified picture: a teacher used the “R-word” in class, the College acted, and a tribunal found the dismissal unfair only because of procedural flaws. But the deeper reality is more complex and far more troubling for the College’s credibility. [original article here:  Bury Times ]   Shifting Student Accounts The central complaint was not consistent. The initial allegation from Student B was that the maths lecturer had called the entire class “retards.” Later, she changed her account to say he had called just her the word. Still later, the complaint shifted again; now alleging he had called a different student, and then two students. Such shifting accounts should have raised immediate questions about reliability. Instead, the College treated the complaint as fact. Credibility of the Complaint Serious questions also arise about the credibility of the original complaint....
Read more

38 - Bury College Principal Endorses DSL’s Use of the Word “Retard”

Bury College Principal, Charlie Deane, has openly supported the College’s Designated Safeguarding Lead (DSL), Sarah Walton, after she repeated the word “retard” directly to a student with a learning disability. This position is remarkable given the College’s own characterisation of the word. In formal proceedings, the College has described “retard” as “offensive,” “derogatory,” “inappropriate,” “bullying,” “harassing,” “alienating,” “hateful,” “unacceptable,” “not used in society,” “a hate crime,” “a disgusting word,” and “linked to a protected characteristic.” The College also acknowledged that its use would cause damage to a student. Despite this, when Walton repeated the word to a vulnerable learner, she faced no sanction, no criticism, and was instead fully supported by Deane. By contrast, another member of staff who repeated the word in a classroom context was vilified and dismissed. Deane’s backing of Walton exposes a troubling double standard. If the word is so damaging tha...
Read more

08 - Safeguarding Lead at Bury College Repeated Harmful Language to Student, Tribunal Hears

The Designated Safeguarding Lead at Bury College admitted to repeating a derogatory slur to a vulnerable student, despite knowing it could cause harm, according to evidence heard at a recent employment tribunal. Sarah Walton, the College's safeguarding lead, made the admission under cross-examination while giving evidence in a three-day hearing concerning the dismissal of a former staff member. The former employee had been dismissed for gross misconduct after allegedly using the word "retard" in a classroom context. Ms Walton told the tribunal that she repeated the slur during a phone call with Student A, a student with a recognised learning disability, so the student would "know exactly what word" she was referring to. When pressed, she accepted that her use of the word could cause the same harm as when the dismissed teacher had used it. However, unlike the Claimant, no disciplinary action was taken against Ms Walton. Her conduct was not investigated, cri...
Read more