The parents of a vulnerable student who took her own life has joined other parents to launch a petition to parliament to change the law to give them better protection - as the University of Bristol announces it is going to try again to appeal a decision that they were partly liable for her death.
Margaret and Robert Abrahart are among 25 bereaved families who have come together to launch the petition, calling on ministers to establish new laws that give universities a legal duty to exercise ‘reasonable care and skill’ when teaching students and providing support services.
The couple’s daughter Natasha took her own life in April 2018 and since then they have been involved in a legal battle over Bristol University’s treatment of the 20-year-old in the weeks and months before her death. And today, the launch of the petition coincided with the University announcing it would continue a legal challenge against a court decision that found they were partly liable and should pay Natasha’s parents compensation.
Read more: Judge refuses Bristol University appeal in Natasha Abrahart suicide case
Natasha was diagnosed with a Chronic Social Anxiety Disorder, and took her own life on the day she was due to make a presentation in a large lecture theatre in front of her entire class - something she’d said she would not be able to do. After her death, her parents took legal action against the University of Bristol, and earlier this year, a judge in Bristol County Court ruled that the university had effectively discriminated against her under disability laws, because they had not sufficiently acted to take her mental health diagnosis into account.
She had been under the care of the Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership, which has subsequently acknowledged that the care Natasha received was inadequate.
The judge in the case ordered that the university should pay the Abraharts £50,000 in damages, and the ruling sent shockwaves through higher education, as it appeared to set a precedent which changed the way, legally, universities are responsible for students’ mental health and wellbeing. Over the summer, the University of Bristol asked the judge for permission to appeal and this week, Bristol Live revealed that this appeal had been dismissed, with the judge saying the University had essentially tried to use the same arguments that had failed the first time around.
Now, the University has told Bristol Live they are going to continue the legal challenge against this year’s ruling, and seek permission to the High Court to appeal the ruling against them, and for the Abrahart family. A spokesperson for the University said the appeal was ‘not against the Abrahart family’, but was being done to clarify what the ruling against them meant.
“After carefully considering the judgement and its implications for the higher education sector, we will be seeking leave from the High Court to appeal the judge’s finding that the University was in breach of the Equality Act,” the spokesperson said. “We would like to make it clear that this appeal is not against the Abrahart family, nor are we disputing the specific circumstances of Natasha’s death. We remain deeply sorry for their loss and we are not contesting the damages awarded by the judge,” she added.
“In appealing, we are seeking absolute clarity for the higher education sector around the application of the Equality Act when staff do not know a student has a disability, or when it has yet to be diagnosed. We hope it will also enable us to provide transparency to students and their families about how we support them and to give all university staff across the country the confidence to do that properly.
“In Natasha’s case, academic and administrative staff assisted Natasha with a referral to both the NHS and our Disability Services, as well as suggesting alternative options for her academic assessment to alleviate the anxiety she faced about presenting her laboratory findings to her peers,” she added.
“However the judgement suggests they should have gone further than this, although Natasha's mental health difficulties had not been diagnosed. Understandably, this has caused considerable anxiety as it puts a major additional burden on staff who are primarily educators, not healthcare professionals. Higher education staff across the country share our concern about the wider impact this judgement could have.
Read more: Bristol University breached law in Natasha Abrahart suicide case, judge rules
Read more: Natasha Abrahart - Parents' heart-breaking statement after daughter's death
“Collectively, we are deeply concerned by the increase of mental health issues amongst our young people nationally, and are determined to do our very best to support any student who is struggling with their mental health through the provision of a wide range of services. At the same time, it is important that students and their families are clear on what universities can and cannot do, and that students receive appropriate specialist care under the NHS should they need it,” she added.
The University’s decision to continue the legal battle against the bereaved family comes as the Abraharts join 25 other families to launch a new campaign for what they are calling a ‘Statute for Student Safety’.
- When life is difficult, Samaritans are here – day or night, 365 days a year. You can call them for free on 116 123, email them at jo@samaritans.org, or visit samaritans.org to find your nearest branch.
The parliamentary petition calls on ministers to establish legislation to better protect students, and to recognise that universities should owe a legal duty to exercise reasonable care and skill when teaching students and providing support services. The group of parents have set up the LEARN Network, and parents say many student suicides are preventable and higher education institutions should do more to keep students safe.
Margaret, 60, a retired psychological wellbeing practitioner, said: “While Natasha’s needless death will always remain a tragic waste of life and something we’ll never overcome, we’ve always been steadfast in our determination not to let it be totally in vain.
“We were able to win our case, and to get some justice for Natasha, because she was a disabled person as defined by the Equality Act. However, the lack of a more general duty of care means that many other students are still at risk and need to be protected. Families are also likely to find it very difficult to get justice if the student in question is not disabled. That just doesn’t seem right,” she added.
Robert, 66, a retired university lecturer, added: “Although the judge in our case found that the university caused Natasha’s death by discriminating against her, he said he couldn’t find that the university was negligent because it didn’t owe Natasha a ‘common law duty of care’. This is liable to create confusion among students, universities and parents. There needs to be greater clarity on the duties universities owe to all students, particularly when providing support for mental health problems.
“This is not just about ‘picking up the pieces’ after something goes wrong. It is about acting with reasonable care and skill from the very start. Providing support to students when they become unwell is obviously important, but it is equally important to ensure that you avoid causing unnecessary distress, and do what is required to help prevent students from becoming unwell in the first place,” he added.
“We’ve repeatedly called on the University of Bristol to sit down with us, to learn from what happened to Natasha, and put in place the changes they need to make in order to keep students like her safe. But nobody seems to be listening, and our offer still hasn’t been taken up. We believe what happened to Natasha wasn’t an isolated incident and too many families with loved ones at universities across the country are being failed,” he said.
“Given the current situation we feel the only way to improve student safety is for there to be clear laws and practices in place which universities need to be measured against. We believe this will ensure universities are upholding their moral duty to protect students, many of whom are hundreds of miles away from home for the first time,” he added.
Bristol human rights lawyer Gus Silverman, who has been representing the Abraharts, said Natasha’s case and others pointed to the need for a change in the law. “The judgement in Natasha’s case highlighted the lack of legal protections for students who don’t benefit from the Equality Act,” he said. “As the law presently stands it is difficult to hold a university legally accountable where it has caused a student harm by behaving unreasonably, unless the student was disabled and the claim meets the Equality Act’s procedural requirements,” he added.
