Four students subjected to disciplinary hearings for their involvement in campus protests at the University of Sussex say they have been given a ¡°caution¡± from the institution.

One of the students involved said that the caution comes after he had been ¡°dragged through the mud¡± for four months of ¡°politically motivated persecution¡±.

The university has not confirmed the outcome of the case against the students but maintained that it has acted ¡°properly and correctly¡±.

Sussex suspended the students in December last year after a seven-night occupation of the Bramber House conference centre. Some of the group were also involved in an alleged blockade of campus traffic on 3 December. The actions were part of an 18-month campaign against the outsourcing of campus services.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

Sussex later reinstated the students pending a disciplinary hearing. But the subsequent hearing, which had the power to exclude or suspend the students, collapsed in January after the group¡¯s lawyers accused the panel¡¯s chair of bias.

The university¡¯s Student Disciplinary Committee then reassessed the cases and?they were?heard under a different regulation in early March. At these hearings the students faced a maximum penalty of ?250.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

Lawyers representing the students branded this second set of hearings as ¡°unlawful¡± and claimed the university ¡°failed to act in accordance with its own regulations¡±. The solicitors also?said that the students had no obligation to pay any fine imposed on them.

A statement issued by the students said that they have now been told they face a caution from the university. It added: ¡°The students refuse to accept the legality of the previous hearings, and still refute any allegation they have acted improperly, and are continuing to seek legal advice.¡±

A Sussex spokesman said that no immediate punishment is imposed as a result of a caution. However, cautioned students are warned?it will have consequences if they are found guilty of another breach of discipline. In this instance the first breach would be regarded as an ¡°aggravating circumstance¡± when considering a sanction for the second offence.

Simon Natas, a partner at the students¡¯ legal firm Irvine Thanvi Natas Solicitors, said: ¡°My clients faced allegations which were initially thought serious enough to justify their suspension and possibly even expulsion from their university but which have now resulted in a mere reprimand.¡±

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

He added: ¡°Even that decision was made following a procedure which we consider to have been unlawful and which may be open to further challenge.¡±??

One of the students involved, Michael Segalov, said: ¡°It is now becoming clear to all that this entire process was unnecessary and illegal. I have maintained throughout that participating in peaceful protest action is something to be encouraged, and is not punishable.¡±

In a statement Sussex said: ¡°The repeated claim by made by some that the university has sought to restrict peaceful protest is, and always has been, nonsense.

¡°Protests have repeatedly descended to violence, campus property has been damaged, the personal property of staff has been stolen and individual members of staff have faced intimidation.¡±

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

It added: ¡°All discipline matters are overseen by the university discipline committee, whose chair and members are independent of executive management.¡±

holly.else@tsleducation.com