16 Jul University of Bristol rejects call for a ‘meaningful’ apology for discrimination linked to student’s death – Equality and Human Rights Commission issues advice to the Higher Education sector
The parents of Natasha Abrahart have said they are “deeply offended” by University of Bristol’s refusal to apologise for contributing to the 20-year-old’s death by discriminating against her. Dr Robert Abrahart, Natasha’s father said “It feels like yet another insult from people who really only care about protecting their own interests.”
The news comes after it was reported that the University is planning to cut its student wellbeing services.
On 14 February 2024 the High Court rejected the University’s appeal against an earlier judgment finding it liable for Natasha’s death. The University was found to have repeatedly breached its duties under the Equality Act towards Natasha before she took her own life in April 2018. These breaches included failing to make reasonable adjustments to a process of oral assessments, which the court found placed Natasha at a substantial disadvantage by virtue of her disabling social anxiety disorder.
Mr Justice Linden found that Natasha “was … very much under pressure to attend the interviews and the presentation [scheduled for the day of her death]” and that there was “never a suggestion by the University that Ms Abrahart did not genuinely have issues with her mental health or was anything other than genuinely unable to cope with the oral assessments.” A County Court judge had previously ordered the University to pay damages of £50,518, including funeral costs.
On the day the High Court delivered its judgment, Natasha’s mother, Margaret Abrahart, called on the University’s Vice Chancellor, Professor Evelyn Welch, to apologise. Professor Welch wrote to Natasha’s parents offering to meet with them, but without offering an apology.
Legal correspondence released today shows that the Abraharts’ solicitor at the civil liberties firm Deighton Pierce Glynn, emailed the University’s lawyer saying that the family were “keen” to meet with Professor Welch “but would like to resolve the apology issue first.” The family’s solicitor proposed that the University provide a draft letter of apology as “it may be that [Professor Welch] is willing to accommodate proposed amendments to a draft which would provide the Abraharts with greater comfort and/or avoid any inadvertent offence”.
On 29 February 2024 Professor Welch sent the Abraharts a signed letter on headed paper saying “I know that nothing that I say will bring Natasha back and I accept we could have done better, and we didn’t. I am so very sorry.” She continued “A letter can only go so far. I would like to apologise to you, and your son, in person and would be pleased to meet you at any point.”
Following a further email exchange between both sides’ lawyers, the Abraharts’ solicitor wrote to the University’s representative on 22 April 2024 saying:
“Professor Welch’s willingness to apologise is appreciated, even if it was prompted by Mrs Abrahart’s statement outside of court and my subsequent email. However, in its current form it is entirely unclear what Professor Welch is apologising for. I appreciate that her letter says that she would like to meet Natasha’s parents and brother, and it may be that Professor Welch intends to expand upon her apology at that meeting. However, given the findings of the High Court and the continuing grief suffered by Natasha’s family, they are understandably only willing to meet with Professor Welch if they can be sure that she does in fact accept the various failings of her institution. This requires an appropriate written apology to be provided in advance of any meeting.”
The letter listed a number of points on which the Abraharts sought an apology from Professor Welch, including:
- “The fact that the University contributed to Natasha’s death by discriminating against her on account of her disability, contrary to the Equality Act 2010”.
- The University’s approach to the inquest into Natasha’s death.
- Various “misleading” press releases made by the University, including statements. following the County Court and High Court judgments which “entirely failed to recognise … the finding[s] that the University contributed to Natasha’s death”.
- The University briefing the press that it would not appeal the High Court’s judgment, before it told the Abraharts.
On 30 May 2024 the University confirmed via its lawyer that it had “no additional comment to make to the comments set out in Professor Welch’s letter of 29th February. Her offer to meet the family remains open.”
Dr Abrahart, a retired university lecturer, said: “Over the last six years the University of Bristol have fought tooth and nail to avoid taking responsibility for Natasha’s death. Perhaps it was naive of me but I thought the High Court’s judgment would finally make them say sorry for what they did, but it hasn’t. I just don’t understand why Professor Welch has instructed her lawyers that she has “no additional comment to make”. Can’t she see how hurtful that is? Can’t she see that just saying sorry, without saying what you’re sorry for, is meaningless? Everyone is sorry that Natasha is dead, but that’s not good enough, not from the head of the organisation that contributed to her death by repeatedly breaking the law. Saying that they could have done more is also completely meaningless without saying what they accept they should have done.”
Margaret Abrahart, a retired psychological wellbeing practitioner, said: “I am really disturbed that Professor Welch has refused to apologise for her University breaking the law and contributing to our daughter’s death. How can any current or future students, or their families, have any confidence in the University of Bristol if its Vice Chancellor refuses to take such a basic step? The tragedy is that Bob and I were looking forward to sitting down with Professor Welch to talk about the future and trying to find some closure. Now that has been taken away from us because she won’t provide anything but the vaguest of sentiments. I can’t sit down with Professor Welch unless I know that she accepts and is truly sorry for what the University did, both to Natasha and to our family throughout the legal processes that followed her death. I don’t know if she is being told that she can’t say these things in writing but if she is then she needs to find the moral courage to do the right thing anyway.”
Gus Silverman, the Abraharts’ solicitor at Deighton Pierce Glynn, said: “A meaningful apology is almost always a key objective for families who have lost loved ones due to the failings of large institutions like the University of Bristol. It can be transformative for families to hear someone in a position of authority unequivocally accept and apologise for the failures that led to a death. On the other hand, defensive or ambiguous statements, like those being offered by the University of Bristol, almost invariably compound the distress felt by families. It beggars belief that the University of Bristol are refusing to provide a meaningful apology in this case, more than six years since Natasha died and after two court judgments finding them liable for her death.”
In a separate development, on 10 July 2024, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, published an “Advice note for the higher education sector from the legal case of University of Bristol vs Abrahart”. This states that “compliance with the law” requires universities to, amongst other things:
- “Ensure all staff are trained on their duties under the Equality Act 2010”
- Train “Student-facing staff … to recognise symptoms of mental health crises”
- “Put in place escalation procedures where staff fail to put in place reasonable adjustments and an assessment is imminent. It should be possible for staff or students to implement these procedures”
Dr Abrahart said “We welcome this guidance from the EHRC and hope that will be followed closely throughout the higher education sector. Any university ignoring the EHRC’s advice risks causing very serious harm to its students, as Natasha’s case tragically demonstrates.”
Notes for editors:
- Copies of the correspondence referenced above can be found here.
- A press release regarding the High Court’s judgment can be found here: https://dpglaw.co.uk/high-court-dismisses-university-of-bristols-appeal-in-natasha-abrahart-case/
- A press release regarding the County Court’s judgment in Abrahart v University of Bristol can be found here: https://www.irwinmitchell.com/news-and-insights/newsandmedia/2022/may/court-finds-discrimination-by-uni-of-bristol-led-to-death-of-vulnerable-student-natasha-abrahart
- Request for photographs, interviews and further information should be directed to bristoladmin@dpglaw.co.uk.
Share this story
