The police are investigating an incident, and your university has opened its own process about the same events. You may receive different deadlines, restrictions and requests for information from each organisation. The priority is to understand which decisions each body is making and coordinate appropriate Criminal Law and Education Law advice before giving substantive accounts that may have consequences across both processes.
Students and parents in England and Wales should not assume that the university must stop everything, or that a police decision will automatically determine the academic position. A disciplinary investigation, a risk assessment and a criminal investigation have distinct functions. The details of timing, evidence and continuing restrictions need to be addressed expressly.
Identify every active process
Create a short schedule, the organised first step of any Dispute Resolution strategy, listing the police matter, university investigation, any precautionary review and any professional-course procedure. Record the contact, reference number, next action and deadline for each. A fitness-to-practise concern may arise alongside discipline, but it asks different questions and should not disappear from the schedule.
Save the actual letters rather than relying on verbal summaries. If the university has only asked for information about police involvement, distinguish that enquiry from a formal allegation. If a disciplinary charge has been issued, identify the university rule said to have been breached and whether its factual scope matches the police investigation.
Obtain coordinated advice before detailed statements
Where criminal allegations are involved, seek advice from an appropriately qualified criminal-law adviser and tell them about the university process. Provide the allegation, meeting invitation and deadline. Education advice should be coordinated with that advice so requests for time, evidence and participation are based on the actual circumstances.
Do not assume that a statement to a university has no relevance outside its process. Equally, do not ignore university correspondence on the assumption that criminal advice automatically excuses non-engagement. Ask for a clear, case-specific approach to the immediate request and keep a written record of any extension or agreed arrangement.
Ask what the university proposes to pause
The OIA’s guidance says universities will not usually be able to conduct their disciplinary investigation during an ongoing police investigation and should document restrictions on their own actions. It also emphasises continuing support and reassessment of risk. [1] The guidance calls for a considered approach, not a blanket suspension of every university function.
Ask whether fact-finding, a hearing or a particular evidence request is paused, and what will continue. Clarify who will review that decision and how updates will be obtained. A pause in investigating the allegation may leave precautionary measures, support arrangements and essential academic decisions requiring attention.
Explain a request for postponement precisely
If a university interview creates a particular difficulty while police enquiries are ongoing, explain the nature of the issue through the appropriate adviser. Identify the step you ask to postpone, the reason and a proposed review point where possible. Avoid requesting an indefinite suspension without arrangements for communication.
The university may seek enough information to assess the request while respecting constraints on sharing police material. Ask what confirmation would assist. A brief status letter may answer the question more appropriately than disclosing a large criminal-case file. Do not supply documents contrary to legal advice or applicable restrictions merely to satisfy a routine administrative request.
Keep police status descriptions accurate
Use the actual terminology in the police communication. Being interviewed, arrested, released under investigation, charged or subject to bail conditions are different positions. Record the date of any change and provide relevant confirmation through the agreed channel. If you do not know the current status, say that you are seeking clarification.
Avoid describing a lack of contact as proof that the investigation has ended. Likewise, do not present an allegation as a conviction or accept the university doing so. A factual correction should identify the inaccurate statement and the evidence establishing the current position, without overstating what that status means for the underlying events.
Compare restrictions without combining them
Read police or court conditions separately from university restrictions. They may cover different people, places, communication methods or periods. Ask the appropriate adviser or decision-maker about ambiguity in each set; a university employee cannot amend a court condition by giving permission to attend a class.
If requirements appear to conflict, raise that promptly and seek coordinated directions before acting. Keep a written copy of any authorised variation. For example, arrangements for collecting possessions or attending an examination may require consideration in more than one process. Do not assume compliance with one set of restrictions satisfies the other automatically.
Request workable academic arrangements
Identify the concrete effect of interim measures on classes, assessment, library access or placement. Ask whether remote participation, alternative scheduling or another arrangement can address the stated concern. Support the request with a timetable or relevant course requirement, rather than a general statement that your education has been disrupted.
A request for access arrangements does not ask the university to decide the criminal allegation. Explain how the proposal works while the facts remain unresolved. If the university refuses, request reasons, the standard of reasoned decision-making expected under Public Law, and the review route. Keep the impact under review as assessment dates approach or the duration of restrictions increases.
Preserve evidence through appropriate channels
Retain your own relevant communications and documents without alteration. Tell your adviser about records held by the university or another organisation that may need prompt preservation. The appropriate way to obtain those records may depend on the police investigation and the university procedure.
Do not contact witnesses to reconcile accounts, approach the reporting student or seek information through friends. Do not delete online material because you think it will be misunderstood. Evidence handling should be coordinated carefully so an attempt to prepare the university response does not interfere with another investigation or breach a restriction.
An illustrative overlapping timetable
Imagine a fictional student invited to a university interview about an incident already under police investigation. The student provides the invitation to their criminal-law adviser, requests clarification of the university’s proposed scope and asks for a considered postponement decision. At the same time, an examination-access issue is addressed through a separate interim review.
The university records which investigative steps are paused and how restrictions will be reviewed. This illustration does not imply that every case requires the same result. It shows why timing of the substantive investigation and practical arrangements for continued study should each receive an express, reasoned decision.
Understand a police outcome carefully
If the police take no further action, obtain the available written confirmation and ask what the university intends to do next. The OIA’s disciplinary guidance recognises that a university may still consider its own disciplinary rules after a criminal investigation ends or an acquittal occurs. The university must identify its own allegation and process.
Do not describe no further action as automatically proving either that nothing happened or that the report was dishonest. The meaning depends on the actual decision and available explanation. Equally, the university should not treat an earlier arrest as a disciplinary finding. Address the evidence and applicable standard in its process.
Review delays and communication
Ask for a named university contact and a reasonable update arrangement during any pause. Record material changes and the next review date for restrictions. If information cannot be shared because of the police investigation, ask for an explanation of the limitation and what can still be communicated.
Students who reported the incident may also need updates and support while the criminal process continues. A fair approach considers the practical position of everyone involved without prejudging the allegation. Parents can assist with organisation and consented communication, but should avoid speaking to other parties or the police on the student’s behalf without appropriate authority and advice.
How Aldwych Legal can assist
Adam Hussain’s education experience includes disciplinary proceedings, university restrictions and fitness-to-practise matters. As Aldwych Legal’s Founder and Managing Director and principal lawyer, he can help identify the university decisions requiring attention and organise representations, with appropriate coordination alongside separately instructed criminal-law advisers.
Students and parents across England and Wales can contact info@aldwychlegal.com or call or WhatsApp 020 4584 2472. Provide the university correspondence, relevant procedure, restrictions and next deadline. Identify any police involvement at the outset so the scope and timing of education support can be considered appropriately.
About Adam Hussain
Adam Hussain is Aldwych Legal’s Founder & Managing Director and head lawyer. His education work includes disciplinary proceedings, university restrictions and fitness-to-practise matters. He can help identify the university decisions requiring attention and coordinate educational representations with separately instructed criminal-law advisers. He holds an LL.M. in International Business Law from King’s College London, has completed Bar training and Practical Legal Training, and is a PhD doctoral researcher in Legal Science at Royal Holloway, University of London.
