The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by Simon Bradshaw:

As someone currently studying law in the UK, I have a few comments about the legal aspect of Mr Gunn's supposed case.

I say 'supposed' becase the reports I've seen suggest that he is considering suing the University of Kent. In other words, he has yet to find a solicitor willing to take the case. I would be surprised if he gets public funding for such a claim, ang given what I think about his chances of success I doubt if any solicitor would offer a conditional fee agreement. He'll thus have to pay in full, as he goes along. And that will be a lot of money, as for a case like this his solicitor will probably have to instruct a barrister, so he will be paying for two lawyers. And if he loses (very likely), he will be hit with a costs bill for the University of Kent's legal representation.

Now, Mr Gunn says he intends to claim for negligence. To prove negligence in an English court you need to prove that:

(a) The defendent owed you a duty of care under the circumstances, and

(b) He or she failed in that duty of care, and

(c) You suffered as a result.

Clearly a university owes a duty of care to its students to ensure that they understand policy on academic work. However, for Mr Gunn to prove that the University of Kent failed in this (and the burden of proof is on him to do so) may be very hard. The existence of a readily-available plagiarism policy would probably suffice, and if he has ever signed acceptance of such a policy, well...

Now, I don't know what Kent's policy on submissions is. However, the last two colleges I've attended here in the UK have both required that every piece of coursework I submitted be accompanied by a form where I signed to certify that what I was submitting was my own work and that I understood the policy on plagiarism and the disciplinary consequences relating to it. If Kent did likewise, and they've retained this paperwork, Mr Gunn's case is almost certainly doomed.

Another, and more fundamental issue, is that there is an old principle of English law that "he who comes to equity must do so with clean hands". Equity is the branch of law dealing (very broadly) with remedy for unfair conduct. In other words, a court will not give equitable remedy for the consequences of your own dishonest actions. Depending on the interpretation the court applies, it may well decide that this means that Mr Gunn's claim is fatally tainted by his own admitted behaviour.

To be frank, I will be surprised if Mr Gunn gets as far as instructing a solicitor and submitting a claim. I will be very surprised if it gets to court, and I will be astonished if he wins.

With respect, I think that there is a major misconception about what Mr Gunn has paid for.

He claims to have debts of £11,000, which sounds about right for three years of standard UK student loans for support (i.e. living expenses, not tuition). Depending on his family circumstances, he may have paid up to £1,125 per year as a personal contribution to tuition expenses. The balance of tuition fees would have been paid by the Government - that is, UK taxpayers like me. We can get an idea how much this is by looking at Kent's fees for non-EU students, who are charged the full cost of tuition: currently £7,895 per annum. In other words, Mr Gunn has been supported by the taxpayer to the tune of £6,770 per annum for three years; say £20,000 or so. He will have actually paid perhaps £3,375 in tuition himself, and quite possibly a lot less.

So, re-instating him would involve asking the UK taxpayer to stump up another £20,000, as well as suggesting that he take on a further £11,000 or so in living-expenses loans (which, AFAIK, he would be very unlikely to get). I for one think that there are more deserving cases to receive my tax pounds.

In response to Jill, 'conditional fee agreements' as they are called over here were introduced a few years ago. They are strictly regulated, not available for some sorts of legal action (e.g. libel) and work somewhat differently from the US version. In particular, rather than getting a percentage of the damages if successful, a lawyer gets to add an 'uplift' (typically 40-100%) to his or her standard fees, thus removing some of the incentive to ambulance-chase. (Also, damages in most civil cases in the UK are set by the judge, not a jury, so tend to be a lot lower than in the US. Libel is an exception in both respects.)

Comment statistics for Simon Bradshaw on the Making Light blog

Total: 3 comments. View all these comments on a single page.