Parallel university and police investigations

Short answer

Yes. A university disciplinary investigation can run alongside a police investigation into the same events. The two processes are separate, serve different purposes, and apply different standards. A university is not legally required to wait for the police or the criminal courts before taking its own action, although in practice many universities choose to pause parts of their process in certain circumstances.

Why the two processes are independent

A criminal investigation and prosecution decides whether a person is guilty of a criminal offence to the criminal standard of proof, meaning beyond reasonable doubt. A university disciplinary process decides whether a student has breached the institution’s own regulations, and it applies the civil standard, meaning on the balance of probabilities. Because the questions being asked and the standard of proof are different, the same facts can properly lead to different outcomes. A student may be acquitted, or the police may take no further action, and the university may still find a breach of its student code of conduct, and vice versa.

The current sector approach in England and Wales is set out in the Universities UK guidance produced with Pinsent Masons, which replaced the older Zellick guidance. The previous Zellick approach suggested universities should generally stand back where criminal conduct was alleged. The updated guidance moves away from that and recognises that universities can, and sometimes should, take their own action, including running a disciplinary process concurrently, subject to a proper risk assessment and fairness safeguards.

When a university may pause or continue

Whether a university proceeds in parallel or pauses depends on the facts and on its own regulations. Common considerations include:

The seriousness of the allegation and the risk to other students, staff or the wider community while matters are unresolved. Where there is an ongoing safety risk, universities often use precautionary or interim measures, such as suspension, restricted campus access or no-contact requirements, without waiting for the criminal outcome. These are risk measures, not findings of guilt.

Whether running the disciplinary process at the same time could prejudice the criminal investigation. Universities will usually liaise with the police. If the police ask the university to delay a particular step, for example interviewing the student or gathering certain evidence, the university may pause that step to avoid interfering with the criminal case. It is common for the fact-finding stage to be paused while the investigative or trial stage is live, then resumed afterwards.

Fairness to the accused student. A student facing a live criminal investigation may be advised not to answer questions in the university process because of the risk of self-incrimination. A fair procedure has to take account of this, which is another reason universities sometimes pause the internal process until the criminal matter concludes.

Some universities’ regulations say they will normally await the outcome of police or court proceedings before conducting their internal investigation, while others expressly reserve the right to proceed regardless of the criminal process. Because this varies between institutions, the decisive document is the specific university’s student disciplinary regulations or code of conduct.

Key fairness principles the university must still observe

Even where a university proceeds in parallel, it must run a procedurally fair process. That normally includes telling the student clearly what is alleged, giving them a fair opportunity to respond, allowing them to be accompanied where the regulations provide for this, reaching decisions on the balance of probabilities based on evidence, and providing an internal appeal. If the process is unfair or the regulations are not followed, that can be challenged.

The fact that a student has not been charged, or has been acquitted, does not by itself prevent a disciplinary finding, but the university cannot simply assert misconduct. It must have its own evidence and apply its own test properly.

What to check in your situation

To work out how this will play out, the important facts are:

1. What the specific university’s disciplinary regulations say about concurrent police involvement, whether they say the university will normally wait, or expressly reserve the right to proceed.

2. Whether the police have asked the university to hold off on any step.

3. Whether any precautionary or interim measures have been imposed, and on what basis, because these can be challenged if disproportionate or applied without a proper risk assessment.

4. The stage of each process and any deadlines the university has set.

Practical points if you are the student

Read the disciplinary regulations carefully and note any deadlines, because internal time limits usually continue to run unless the university confirms a pause in writing.

Ask the university in writing whether it intends to proceed now or await the criminal outcome, and ask for reasons and for a copy of any risk assessment behind any interim measures.

Be careful about what you say in the university process while a criminal matter is live, because anything you say could be relevant to the criminal case. Where there is a genuine risk of self-incrimination, you can ask the university to pause its process for that reason and record your position without waiving your rights.

Keep the university’s welfare and support services engaged, as support should continue whether or not the disciplinary process is paused.

If you disagree with how the university handles it

If you think the university has acted unfairly, disproportionately, or contrary to its own regulations, the route is normally to exhaust the internal disciplinary and appeal procedures first, obtain a Completion of Procedures letter, and then complain to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education, which reviews whether the university acted fairly and in line with its own rules and with good practice. Judicial review is a further possibility in limited circumstances, but the OIA route is usually the practical first port of call after internal processes are exhausted.

The strength of any challenge depends heavily on the precise wording of the university’s regulations and on exactly what has happened, so identifying those specific facts is the most useful next step.