ÃûæÂÖ±²¥

The ÃûæÂÖ±²¥â€™s judicial review against the Office for Students

Read an overview of the ÃûæÂÖ±²¥â€™s successful judicial review against the Office for Students (OfS) in the High Court.

On this page

• our statement
• legal summary
• the history of this case.

Statement from the Vice-Chancellor, Professor Sasha Roseneil

The High Court has issued its judgment in response to the Judicial Review sought by the ÃûæÂÖ±²¥ of the Office for Students’ (OfS) decision to find Sussex in breach of two conditions of registration and to fine the University an unprecedented £585,000.

The University has always maintained that the OfS adopted an erroneous and absolutist approach to freedom of speech, that it deliberately ignored comprehensive protections of academic freedom and freedom of speech at ÃûæÂÖ±²¥, and that it prosecuted its torturous three and a half year long investigation with a ‘closed mind’.

The Court’s judgment is a comprehensive vindication of that position.

Read Sasha Roseneil’s full statement

Legal summary

Read our lawyers’ summary of the judgment's findings [240KB PDF].

Read the High Court’s full judgment [977KB PDF].

The history of this case

The story of how this case unfolded, with links to our legal arguments and commentary we have published.

• The University’s Skeleton Argument for the High Court

  On 9 May 2025, the ÃûæÂÖ±²¥ issued legal proceedings challenging the decision of the Office for Students, dated 27 March 2025, which found that the University had breached its conditions of registration. The case was heard by the High Court in London from 3-6 February 2026. We published the University’s Skeleton Argument here (link below) to assist members of the University and the public in understanding the University’s case. The University’s legal arguments are summarised on page two.
  
  Academic freedom and freedom of speech are foundational principles for the University and are crucial to our work of advancing knowledge and understanding. Sussex fiercely defends the rights of our students and academics to free expression and academic freedom. We also take seriously our responsibilities to protect students and staff from abuse, bullying, harassment, and discrimination, and to create an inclusive working and learning environment in which every member of our diverse community can flourish.
  
  This is an important case. It concerns the scope of the regulator’s powers and the autonomy of universities to foster civility, respect and inclusion on campus, and it has implications for every higher education institution in England.

  The University’s Skeleton Argument for the High Court [PDF 554KB]

• Our Statement of Facts and Grounds

  The University produced a ‘Statement of Facts and Grounds’ on the basis of which it was granted permission by the High Court to apply for judicial review. The sections in purple represent amendments to the Statement of Facts and Grounds agreed by the Court following the publication by the Office for Students of Regulatory Advice 24. You can read the statement in full below.

  Re-amended Statement of Facts and Grounds [PDF 671 KB]
  

• Our legal case: pre-action protocol letter

  On 9 May 2025, the University submitted its application for judicial review of the OfS’s decision.

  Pre-action protocol letter [PDF 516.79KB]

Key facts about the OfS investigation

• The investigation itself
  1. The OfS has not investigated the particular circumstances relating to Professor Kathleen Stock’s decision to resign from the University. The OfS does not have the powers to investigate individual cases.
  2. The OfS decision relates to one document, The Trans and Non-Binary Equality Policy Statement, which was adopted by many universities, and to how this and two other documents were approved. The investigation took nearly three and a half years.
  3. In the course of the investigation, the OfS interviewed only one person, Professor Kathleen Stock. The OfS did not interview her until over two years into the investigation.
  4. The OfS refused to discuss any substantive matters relating to the investigation with the University. The University asked repeatedly (at least nine times) for meetings with the OfS, and its requests were turned down or ignored.
  5. The only evidence of any harm caused by one early version of The Trans and Non-Binary Equality Policy Statement was the testimony of the one person interviewed. There is no evidence of harm in relation to the later versions of the Trans and Non-Binary Equality Policy Statement. The OfS did not interview any students or any academics at the University and refused all invitations to meet with the University.
• The Trans and Non-Binary Equality Policy Statement
  1. The OfS found fault with one University policy statement, which has since been changed. The document was drawn from a template widely used by other universities.
  2. The policy statement was changed in August 2022, which was before the OfS informed the University of its concerns about the document.
  3. The policy was then subsequently changed twice, with a view to ensuring compliance, most recently in May 2024.
  4. In May 2024, the University asked the OfS whether these changes met its requirements. The OfS ignored this request.

The OfS’s findings

The OfS’s findings in relation to the Trans and Non-Binary Equality Policy Statement had implications for the University’s ability to protect Black, Jewish, Muslim, disabled, female, lesbian, gay and bisexual, and trans and non-binary students and staff - indeed anyone, including those holding gender-critical views - from abuse, bullying and harassment where it was not otherwise unlawful.

Our articles about the implications of the OfS investigation

• Sasha Roseneil set out the for the Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI) blog, which she argued are “wide ranging and highly corrosive of attempts to create diverse, inclusive and equal working and learning environments, and threaten university autonomy”.
• In March 2025, Sasha Roseneil published an opinion piece on the calling the “Kafkaesque investigation” into the University “political scapegoating” and warning that the implications for the higher education sector could be dire.
• In March 2025, the ÃûæÂÖ±²¥ issued a press statement in response to the Office for Students’ own publishing the findings of its investigation. Sussex’s statement condemned the findings of the OfS’ investigation, noting that its conclusions could leave universities unable to have policies to prevent abusive, bullying and harassing speech, ultimately perpetuating the culture wars.

---

You might also be interested in:

• our commitment to academic freedom and freedom of speech
• our strategy
• the Sussex School for Progressive Futures.