University of Cambridge bullying accuser denies ‘vendetta’

An astrophysics professor who has claimed the University of Cambridge’s Institute of Astronomy (IOA) suffers from a culture of “bullying” and “misogyny” has denied pursuing a “vendetta” as his case concluded at employment tribunal.

Wyn Evans has raised concerns over the treatment of several female staff members within the IOA, alleging that he became “deeply worried” about the well-being of one woman in particular, and that the institution had a “bad history of misogyny”.

In his witness statement to the court, Evans called for Cambridge vice-chancellor Deborah Prentice to “consider stepping down” over what he alleges to be “serious dereliction of oversight” in relation to what happened.

Cambridge said it rejects the claims and has been “vigorously defending” the case.

Evans, who stood to be Cambridge chancellor in an election last year, maintains that he was victimised as a result of making protected disclosures and criticises the university for taking “almost two years” to dismiss a grievance later raised against him and two other professors by the former IOA director, Richard McMahon.

Evans then initiated separate legal proceedings against McMahon, claiming that his grievance had been defamatory. In the current tribunal, Evans has accused Cambridge of failing to swiftly dismiss the content of McMahon’s grievance as “baseless allegations”.

In addition, Evans has told the tribunal he believes McMahon fought the libel proceedings with funding from the university. That separate legal case was resolved with a preliminary issues judgment in 2023 finding the statements made by McMahon were defamatory, and the case being settled out of court.

Since 1 June, a tribunal has been considering whether Evans received detrimental treatment as a result of whistleblowing.

Cambridge has strenuously denied Evans’ claims and has in turn accused the professor of harbouring a “vendetta” against McMahon, who remains an academic at the institution.

Evans has denied any suggestion of a vendetta. McMahon has also denied the bullying allegations made against him.

The tribunal, heard in Bury St Edmunds, concluded on 26 June with both sides presenting their closing arguments.

Barrister Akua Reindorf, acting for Cambridge, told the court that the submissions put forward by Evans’ team were complex, adding: “What I do say is, as a rule, if something has to be explained in such granular detail that it starts to sound a bit like a paranoid conspiracy theory, that’s an indication that it may well be a paranoid conspiracy theory.”

She accused Evans of presenting a “completely false” picture of a “vindictive” McMahon “driven to retaliate”, a depiction she categorised as wholly untrue.

She said the defendants had been “impeccably fair” in how they engaged with Evans over the course of the past few years.

Reindorf also questioned Evans’ decision to name claimants including vice-chancellor Prentice in the tribunal.

“We ask whether or not there’s an inference to be drawn that the claimant was seeking to attract some sort of attention to the case to increase its exposure,” Reindorf said.

Stuart Brittenden, acting for Evans, said the claims his client was raising were “extremely serious” and “warranted…intervention”. “Looking at the spectrum of potential risk to safety, based on what Professor Evans knew at the time…it falls within scope.”

The outcome of the case is expected later this year.

georgia.luckhurst@timeshighereducation.com