There was a protest in January $2023$ by students and staff at the University of Camberwick,

against certain research being undertaken in the Medical Research Centre.

During the protests, which were largely peaceful, there were a small number of acts of vandalism

and one incident where a fake explosive was placed near the Medical Research Centre.

The local police were called, and investigated these incidents but so far they have not made any

arrests.

Meanwhile, the university council decides to monitor all staff and student emails, including those

sent from university email addresses and those sent on other addresses via university servers.

This applies regardless of whether the individual student or employee is suspected of involvement

or was involved in the protests. This is not announced to the students or staff at all, but is noted in

the minutes of a meeting of senior management as follows:

$$Council agrees to commence monitoring of all emails to identify anyone involved in

undesirable activities, per Regulation $101$ of the University Regulations, until further

decision.$$

Regulation $101$ reads:

$$Monitoring of staff and student communications is permissible only in the event of a

reasonable suspicion that any student or employee is engaged in activities likely to

endanger the life or health of members of the university. The purpose of such monitoring

must be limited to preventing injury or serious damage to property.$$

$$Any such action must be authorised personally by the Vice Chancellor of the University $($not

delegated to any other officer$).$ The Vice Chancellor must take advice from the Chief

Constable of Cambershire before authorising such action.$$

The Vice Chancellor accepts that she authorised the action without consulting the Chief Constable

of Cambershire but states that she discussed the matter with the Deputy Chief Constable of a

neighbouring police force, who is a personal friend. There are no written records of that discussion

although the Deputy Chief Constable confirms in a written statement that he does remember

discussing the matter with the Vice Chancellor.

It subsequently emerges that three members of staff were identified through this monitoring as

encouraging students to complain to the university about the continuing research in the Medical

Research Centre. A note was placed on their Human Resources files saying that these staff

should be denied promotion because they were undertaking actions likely to harm the reputation of

the university.

$[/$Question continued over$]$

M$3006$ Public Law I $($Advanced$)$

$3$

You are advising the University of Camberwick Students$$ Union and Camberwick$$s branch of the

University Workers Union.

They have heard about a recent case, R $($on the application of HM$)$ v Secretary of State for the

Home Department $[2022],$ which they have sent you a link to$,$ and they wish to know whether or

not it supports their application for judicial review.

HM$,$ R $($On the Application Of$)$ v Secretary of State for the Home Department $[2022]$ EWHC $695$

$($Admin$)(25$ March $2022)($bailii$.$org$)$

Exam task:

$1.$ Advise the two Unions on their claim for judicial review of the University of Camberwick,

including any possible grounds for judicial review, whether they have sufficient interest or

standing and whether the university is amenable to judicial review, with reference to

relevant case law.

$2.$ How, if at all, would your answer differ if these events took place in a British overseas

dependent territory, which has been given a constitution by Order in Council. The Trumpton

$($Constitution$)$ Order in Council requires all Trumptonian public authorities to act in a manner

compatible with the rights set out in the European Convention on Human Rights.

END OF PAPER