'The law needs to catch up on student mental health'

A court case this week could change the way universities are expected to look after their students - including their mental health.

The High Court is considering whether universities owe what is called a duty of care to their students.

Lawyers acting for the parents of Natasha Abrahart, who took her own life, will make the case in court.

The University of Bristol, where she studied, says that no such duty exists.

A judge will examine whether "reasonable steps" must be taken to avoid students coming to harm, and whether universities have a duty not to cause such harm.

The three-day hearing in Bristol calls into question what, exactly, falls under a university's remit.

It seeks to provide clarity on where universities' limitations lie, and how responsible they ought to be for their students - the majority of whom are young adults living away from their family homes for the first time.

It comes at the end of a sixth year of campaigning for Maggie and Bob Abrahart.

Their daughter, Natasha, had social anxiety, and had been due to give a presentation in a large lecture theatre on the day she died in 2018.

Last year, a judge ruled that the University of Bristol had failed to make reasonable adjustments for Natasha - a decision against which the university is now appealing.

But the judge also said it was not clear that the university owed Natasha a duty of care, saying there was "no statute or precedent which establishes the existence of such a duty of care owed by a university to a student". The Abraharts are appealing against that decision.

Dr Abrahart told the BBC there should be a duty of care as a "minimum standard of legal protection".

"The world has changed. Students have changed. The law needs to catch up," he said.

Mrs Abrahart said: "We know what universities are aiming for - and there's an awful lot the government is looking at, you know, what is best practice. But what we really need to see is, what is the minimum that you can expect?

"No matter what you read in your prospectus, don't ever assume that's what's going to happen - because without a duty of care, it doesn't have to happen."

The University of Bristol said it was "deeply sorry" for the Abraharts' loss, and stressed that Natasha was offered alternative options to giving a presentation.

A spokesman said the university was concerned by the prospect of a "major additional burden on staff who are primarily educators, not healthcare professionals".

"Higher education staff across the country share our concern about the wider impact this judgement could have," he added.

"It is important that students and their families are clear on what universities can and cannot do, and that students receive appropriate specialist care under the NHS, should they need it."

More than 100,000 people signed a petition from the Abraharts and other families of students who had killed themselves, prompting a debate among MPs in June.

During the debate, Higher Education Minister Robert Halfon said a statutory duty of care "may not be the most effective intervention", but that he was "not closing the door on future legislation".

Mental health campaigner Ben West, who was among the petition's signatories, told the BBC a duty of care - which would apply in England and Wales - would not affect most students.

"What we're really focusing on here is the minority of students that are in a vulnerable position that are potentially suicidal, struggling with their mental health, struggling with issues outside of university. Maybe they've experienced sexual assault," he said.

"They need protection that's not given currently under the law."

Official estimates suggest 64 students killed themselves in England and Wales in 2019-20 - a lower proportion than among the general population of similar ages - but families say reporting issues mean the number is higher.

Universities UK (UUK), which represents more than 140 institutions, said it wanted to see progress on student mental health and suicide protection.

But a statement added: "We do not believe a proposed additional statutory duty of care, beyond the existing duties that already apply to universities, would be practical, proportionate, or the best approach to supporting students."

Last year, UUK advised universities to introduce information-sharing policies, giving staff the ability to reach out to students' loved ones listed as "trusted contacts" if they were concerned about a student's mental health - with or without the student's permission.

However, it is not clear how many universities have implemented the guidance.

Mr Halfon has also asked universities to sign up to the University Mental Health Charter - a set of principles developed by the charity Student Minds to help institutions prioritise mental health.

Dominic Smithies, a spokesman for the charity, told the BBC his understanding was that there was already a duty of care for universities "not to be negligent or harmful".

"Why we're here at the moment is we haven't really seen many tests of this duty in the courts," he said.

"We're watching, as is the rest of the higher education sector, how this plays out."

Mr Smithies said the Abraharts' campaign was "identifying a lot of challenges and gaps that we do need to address" but the idea of a statutory duty of care "feels very theoretical".

"The question that we have is, is this the right solution to the problems that are being raised? And without seeing this fully mapped out, without seeing how this would manage the risks and the concerns and apprehensions that we have, it's very hard to provide proper comment and ultimately provide support for this call without seeing what it looks like," he said.

The concerns, he said, included implementing legislation across the board when universities differ in size and student population, and staff feeling as though they would be "picking up risk and personal liability" when speaking to students about their mental health.

The Department for Education said it would "carefully consider the court's judgement when it is handed down".

The three-day hearing in Bristol Civil and Family Justice Centre ends on Wednesday, although it is not clear when a ruling will be made.