In others, the right of appeal is not couched in ways that speak of independence and impartiality. In these latter cases, they can illustrate the more general issue that appeal bodies are almost always appointed and remunerated by the university in question, and it is plainly a party to the proceedings. Many processes are deeply obscure, many obscurities compounded when matters like scientific fraud or experimental propriety are at issue. A great many of these potential defects unquestionably apply to hearings dealing with student discipline and grievance. In fact, I think it likely that procedures for students may be more vulnerable to opacity, lack of equality of arms, or appeal.
Students paying for their higher education show every sign of becoming more litigious.
It will be expensive but, as matters stand, it is likely to be unavoidable. This is not a time when people will be easily dissuaded from testing what are plausibly important rights to have a fair consideration of matters usually dear to their hearts, their futures and livelihoods. I say 'as matters stand'. They need not stand this way. Both universities and those contemplating action against them would be helped, financially and in terms of the ethics of the Human Rights Act, if they cleaned up their own act.