< img src="https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/3d3c329d5f1787a4dceb5cbbe8448fcc10964944/0_0_5545_4435/master/5545.jpg?width=1200&height=630&quality=85&auto=format&fit=crop&precrop=40:21,offset-x50,offset-y0&overlay-align=bottom%2Cleft&overlay-width=100p&overlay-base64=L2ltZy9zdGF0aWMvb3ZlcmxheXMvdGctZGVmYXVsdC5wbmc&enable=upscale&s=03d2846e21a600dbc194d82e0e595cbc"alt =""> A University of Cambridge whistleblower who declared bullying of female personnel inside the university’s Institute of Astronomy has won a tribunal against his employer.Prof Wyn Evans told a tribunal hearing in June that the institute struggled with “a bad history of misogyny”. He declared that one woman in the department had been “pestered out of a task”, another was “left a frightened female”, and a 3rd had actually dealt with “aggressive teachers” at the institute.The tribunal found that after raising issues, Evans was “subjected to an extended almost two-year investigation by the university”, despite the fact that the claims against him”contained little particularisation, and no proof to support them”. The tribunal said its task was not to”conduct a public inquiry into supposed bullying or misogyny within the Institute of Astronomy at the University of Cambridge “but concluded it was” satisfied that the claimant genuinely thought that there was an issue within the institute about the way female administrators were being dealt with”. It discovered that Cambridge”did not even wish to consider “Evans’s complaints under its whistleblowing policy, and explained “an institutional state of mind “that saw the professor of astrophysics as “a source of trouble and continuing reputational risk due to his secured disclosures which might harm the institute and the university”. The judgment comes at a torrid time for senior leaders at Cambridge, where academics are requiring an independent questions into the procedures and circumstances that resulted in Jason Arday being designated as the university’s youngest professor. Arday, who was appointed in 2023, stepped down earlier this month amidst claims of plagiarism and decorating his CV.The investigation into Prof Wyn Evans after he made his complaints was ‘unwarranted’,’ filed in retaliation ‘and ‘most likely malicious and vexatious ‘, the tribunal ruled. Photograph: Sophia Evans/The Observer After the tribunal in Bury St Edmunds, Employment Judge Graham found severe failures in the university’s handling of grievances by Evans, with 11 of 14 alleged hinderances supported versus the university or specific participants consisting of the vice-chancellor. The investigation into Evans was discovered to be”contrary to natural justice”. The tribunal ruled it was”baseless(as nothing
had been supplied to support it )and it had actually been submitted in retaliation … and was therefore likely destructive and vexatious “.” By contrast, a number of the plaintiff’s comprehensive concerns or problems were dismissed out of hand without an appropriate process,”it said.The tribunal also concluded that senior figures at Cambridge depend on correspondence and procedures prepared for them by HR or administrators.The vice-chancellor attended the tribunal personally in June and declared that she had actually drafted an action to Evans”with the assistance of” the then university registrary, Emma Rampton.
The tribunal declined Prof Deborah Prentice’s proof. “We discover that it was written exclusively by Ms Rampton and then provided to the vice-chancellor as a fait accompli. Professor Prentice had extremely little to do with it, save for putting her name to it.”” Ghostwriting was a consistent and a worrying style throughout this matter, “the tribunal concluded.” In one example the person being grumbled about drafted the action to the claimant declining his complaints against them. “Evidence submitted by Prof Deborah Prentice, University of Cambridge’s vice-chancellor, was rejected by the tribunal as she ‘had very little to do with it, conserve for putting her name to it’. Photo: Linda Nylind/The Guardian Evans, who in 2015 stood to be the University of Cambridge’s chancellor on an anti-bullying manifesto, has said the tribunal judgment raised questions about the vice-chancellor’s fitness for workplace.”Never ever rains
but it pours for Cambridge,”he said.”Cambridge University has actually lost the whistleblowing tribunal, with vice-chancellor Deborah Prentice amongst the respondents found to have actually retaliated versus a whistleblower. That comes on top of serious issues about her management throughout the Jason Arday crisis. Taken together, these events raise an essential question: is Deborah Prentice really in control of the university she is expected to lead?”During the hearing, Akua Reindorf KC, for the University of Cambridge, had actually suggested Evans’s psychological testimony in court about the suicide of a former coworker amounted to “crocodile tears”. The tribunal found”
we were not convinced that the claimant’s expressed emotion in the hearing was false or dramatised for our advantage”. In a declaration the University of Cambridge stated: “We acknowledge the employment tribunal’s judgment of 10 August 2026 and are carefully evaluating it. We will now take some time to assess the findings in information.”Damages in the case are because of be decided at an additional hearing in January.