Bristol University loses appeal over disabled student’s suicide on exam day
The family of a disabled student who killed himself on the day of a ‘truly terrifying’ oral exam have won the final stage of a legal battle to force universities to take more care of students struggling with their mental health.
Natasha Abrahart’s parents and supporters say a High Court judge’s ruling against the University of Bristol has implications for the entire higher education sector and hope it will prompt politicians to rethink introducing a legal duty of care for students.
Outside court, Natasha’s family strongly criticized the university for failing to apologize for the way it responded to their “exceptional” daughter’s problems.
Natasha, a 20-year-old physics student with chronic social anxiety disorder, took her own life in April 2018 on the day she was due to give a presentation to fellow students and staff in a 329-seat lecture hall.
In May 2022, a senior district court judge ruled that the university had breached the Equality Act 2010, amounting to discrimination on the grounds of disability. The university was ordered to pay more than £50,000 in damages, including the costs of Natasha’s funeral.
The university appealed the decision and the case was heard by Mr Justice Linden in Bristol in December last year. His judgment was published on Wednesday dismissing the appeal.
Natasha’s father, Robert Abrahart, said outside the High Court in Bristol, alongside parents whose children have committed suicide at other universities: “The judgment means there is now a legally binding precedent setting out how and when higher education institutions should change their policies . assessment methods to prevent discrimination against disabled students.”
Abrahart, a retired university lecturer, said expecting Natasha to be able to take the oral exam was like expecting someone who is afraid of spiders to willingly enter a room full of huge, venomous spiders. He said: “We blame the university for not properly training its staff in their duties towards disabled students.”
Natasha’s mother, Margaret Abrahart, a retired psychological well-being expert, told the university directly: ‘Finally, five years and nine months after Natasha’s death, say sorry to us. We are waiting.”
The family had asked the judge to decide whether the university owed Natasha a duty of care under the law of negligence. He declined to do so because “the issue has potentially broad application and significance.”
Margaret Abrahart said: “We were able to get a measure of justice for Natasha because she was disabled and covered by the Equality Act. But what about students who are not disabled? They need a legal duty of care.” She called on party leaders to include a legal duty of care for universities in their manifestos.
Professor Evelyn Welch, Vice-Chancellor and President of the University, said: “Natasha’s death is a tragedy – I am deeply sorry for the Abrahart family’s loss.
“At Bristol we care deeply about all our students and their mental health and wellbeing is a priority and at the heart of everything we do. We continue to develop and improve our services and safeguards to support our students who need help.
“On appeal, we sought clarity for the higher education sector on the application of the Equality Act when staff are unaware that a student has a disability, or when it has yet to be diagnosed. We will work with colleagues from across the sector as we review the judgment.”