John Griffith, Professor of Law at the London School of Economics was retained by several of the ten to assist with their appeals. On 11 May 1970, Professor Griffith submitted to the University the following grounds for appeal:
- Ordinance 16 provides under Discipline Regulations para 2(b) (vii):
‘According to the nature of the notice of appeal, the Board shall determine whether the hearing of the appeal shall be way of a complete rehearing of the case de nove or otherwise. Where the notice of appeal has signified a wish for a complete rehearing, that procedure shall be followed unless it is clear beyond all doubt that it is not required to ensure justice.’
- I submit that the cases of those I represent must be completely reheard in accordance with the above-quoted paragraph on the following grounds:
(i) That those I represent were not represented at the hearings before the Board of Discipline.
(ii) That the Boards of Discipline have recorded no findings of fact.
(iii) That the Boards of Discipline have recorded no reasoned decisions.
(iv) That no transcripts of the hearings before the Boards of Discipline were taken or, if taken, are made available to me.
(v) That the summaries of evidence of the hearings before the Boards of Discipline may be inaccurate or incomplete and that I believe them to be so in important particulars.
(vi) That in order to establish the accurate and complete facts I need to examine and cross-examine the witnesses heard by the Boards of Discipline.
(vii) That in order to establish the accurate and complete facts I need to adduce evidence (to be given by those I represent and others) not adduced before the Boards of Discipline.
(viii) That I may be enabled to make submissions on facts established by examination and cross-examination of witnesses.
(ix) That, having regard to the severity of the penalties imposed by the Boards of Discipline, the Board of Appeal cannot properly review them without hearing the examination and cross-examination of witnesses.
- In addressing you on these grounds I shall, if required, expand and exemplify the above submissions.
Later, Professor Griffiths added the following grounds:
- That the decision of the Disciplinary Board was invalid in that:
- One of its members (Mrs Irene Collins) had signed a petition condemning the occupation of the Senate House.
- The members of the Board examined and read written summaries of evidence prepared by witnesses for the prosecution and then refused to permit cross-examination of those witnesses based on discrepencies between the written summaries and the oral evidence of the witnesses.
- The Disciplinary Board refused to allow evidence to be given or statements to be made concerning the reasons for the occupation of the Senate House and thereby and in other ways prevented itself from taking fully into account argument concerning the duties of the university.
- That the evidence before the Board of Discipline was insufficient to support the findings.
- That the sentences imposed by the Board of Discipline were unduly severe having regard to the charges and to the wellbeing of the University, its staff and its students.