University Investigations Under the National Code: Why Trauma-Informed and Gender-Based Violence Expertise Matters

When a university receives a report of sexual harassment, sexual assault, stalking, coercive control or intimate partner violence, the stakes are high. These matters sit at the intersection of student safety, procedural fairness, institutional risk and regulatory compliance.

The introduction of the National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-Based Violence (the National Code) has reinforced expectations that universities respond to these matters in a way that is safe, accountable and evidence-based. Universities must support students, manage risk and make fair, defensible decisions—often in the face of conflicting accounts, limited evidence and heightened community expectations.

Meeting these obligations requires more than a complaints process. It requires investigations that recognise the impacts of trauma, understand the dynamics of gender-based violence and uphold procedural fairness for all parties.

The question for universities is no longer whether they should investigate allegations of gender-based violence. The challenge is how to do so in a way that is both compassionate and rigorous.

_{The Challenge of University Investigations}  

University investigations are rarely straightforward.  

Unlike workplace investigations, student matters often involve:  

‍

• Young adults experiencing significant life transitions;  

• Power imbalances within relationships;  

• Delayed disclosures of harm;  

• Limited independent evidence;  

• Complex interpersonal dynamics;  

• Ongoing safety concerns for multiple parties.  

In many cases there are no witnesses, no contemporaneous records and no forensic evidence available. Universities must therefore make important decisions based on incomplete and nuanced information while maintaining confidence in the integrity of the process.

_{Understanding the Balance of Probabilities}  

University investigations typically operate under the civil standard of proof known as the balance of probabilities. In simple terms, investigators must determine whether it is more likely than not that the alleged conduct occurred.

This differs from the criminal standard of proof, which requires allegations to be established beyond reasonable doubt. However, balance of probabilities should never be confused with a lower-quality investigation.

Investigators must still carefully assess:  

‍

• The credibility and reliability of evidence;  

• Corroborating information;  

• Consistency of accounts;  

• Contextual factors;

• Alternative explanations;  

• The totality of available evidence.

Findings should be based on evidence rather than assumptions, stereotypes or external pressures. The role of an investigator is to approach the evidence objectively while understanding the context from which evidence emerges.  

_{Why Trauma-Informed Practice Matters}  

Trauma can significantly influence how individuals experience and engage with investigative processes.  

Survivors of violence do not always recall or communicate experiences in ways that align with common expectations. They may delay reporting, describe events non-linearly, struggle with chronology, experience fragmented memory or present with emotional responses that appear inconsistent with the nature of the allegation.

Without a trauma-informed approach, these responses can be incorrectly interpreted as indicators of unreliability.  

Trauma-informed investigations do not presume allegations are true. Rather, they recognise that trauma can affect memory, behaviour and communication, and that investigative processes should account for these realities. This involves prioritising psychological safety, using respectful and non-judgemental engagement and minimising unnecessary re-traumatisation. It also requires clear communication about the process and expectations, while supporting meaningful participation from all parties.

When applied appropriately, trauma-informed practice supports investigators obtain the best available evidence while treating participants with dignity and respect.

_{The Importance of Gender-Based Violence Expertise}  

While trauma-informed practice is critical, effective gender-based violence investigations require something more.  

Many forms of gender-based violence do not occur as isolated incidents. Rather, they emerge through patterns of behaviour that can be difficult to recognise without specialist expertise.

These may include:  

‍

• Coercive control;  

• Technology-facilitated abuse;  

• Stalking behaviours;  

• Pattern-based harassment;  

• Abuse of power or authority;  

• Retaliation following rejection or separation;

• Predatory behavioural patterns;

• Boundary testing and escalation.

A specialist gender-based violence lens enables investigators to analyse behaviour within its broader context rather than assessing incidents in isolation. When viewed individually, certain behaviours may appear insignificant. However, when assessed collectively, they can reveal patterns of manipulation, control or abuse.

Investigators with experience in gender-based violence understand how offending behaviours can manifest across multiple environments, including accommodation settings, student organisations, social events, online platforms and intimate relationships. They are better equipped to identify risk factors, understand behavioural patterns and analyse allegations within their broader context.

_{When Allegations Cannot Be Substantiated}  

One of the most challenging and misunderstood aspects of university investigations is what occurs when allegations cannot be substantiated.  

A finding that an allegation is "not substantiated" does not necessarily mean:

• The allegation was false;  

• No harm occurred;  

• No safety concerns exist;  

• The matter requires no further response.  

It can be the result of insufficient evidence available to establish the allegation on the balance of probabilities. This distinction is important and universities often face difficult decisions in these circumstances. While disciplinary action may not be appropriate, institutions still retain obligations relating to student safety, wellbeing and risk management. This is where independent risk assessment becomes particularly valuable.  

_{Why Risk Assessments Matter}

An investigation and a risk assessment serve different but complementary purposes.

An investigation asks:

Can the allegation be substantiated based on the available evidence?

A risk assessment asks:

What risks currently exist, and what actions may be needed to manage them?

Separating these functions helps institutions avoid conflating evidentiary outcomes with safety responsibilities.  

Independent risk assessments can help universities identify:

‍

• Potential risks of future harm;

• Escalation concerns;

• Ongoing contact risks;

• Residential safety issues;

• Wellbeing impacts;

• Community safety considerations;

• Reputational and operational risks.

In some circumstances, a risk assessment may recommend the implementation of safeguards such as changes to accommodation arrangements, no-contact directions, enhanced supervision or monitoring, wellbeing supports, safety planning, behavioural interventions or restorative and educational measures. These actions are distinct from disciplinary outcomes and should instead be understood as risk management strategies intended to protect individuals and promote community safety.

_{Building Trust Through Independent Investigations}  

Trust sits at the heart of effective university responses to gender-based violence.

Students must feel confident that disclosures will be taken seriously, while respondents must have confidence that allegations will be assessed fairly and objectively. Universities need assurance that outcomes are defensible and aligned with regulatory expectations.

Independent investigations can play a vital role in building trust and confidence in the investigation process. By providing an impartial perspective, they help reduce perceptions of institutional bias and reinforce the integrity of outcomes. Independent investigators also enhance transparency by ensuring processes are open, fair and accountable. Their specialist expertise can strengthen the quality of findings and recommendations, while supporting sound, evidence-based decision-making. Importantly, engaging an independent investigator demonstrates a clear commitment to safety, fairness and continuous improvement, helping to foster confidence among all stakeholders.

‍

_{Looking Forward}  

The strongest university investigations are not those that prioritise either survivor support or procedural fairness. They are the investigations that successfully achieve both. As expectations under the National Code and broader safeguarding frameworks continue to evolve, institutions increasingly require investigations that combine trauma-informed practice, specialist gender-based violence expertise, robust evidentiary assessment and independent risk analysis.

Ultimately, effective investigations do more than determine whether allegations can be substantiated. They help institutions strengthen safety, manage risk and build trust. In doing so, they support university communities to remain places where students can learn, participate and thrive.

_{How Sentara Consulting Can Assist}

Sentara Consulting provides independent investigations, risk assessments, restorative pathways and specialist gender-based violence expertise to support universities responding to complex student and staff matters.  

Our investigations are conducted by practitioners with specialised expertise in both gender-based violence and trauma-informed practice. Additionally, our investigative reports undergo evidentiary review by an experienced legal professional, providing an additional layer of procedural rigour and quality assurance. This multidisciplinary approach helps ensure findings are balanced, defensible and capable of withstanding internal and external scrutiny.

Sentara Consulting provides this information for general informational purposes only. It does not constitute professional advice and should not be relied upon as a substitute for independent advice tailored to your particular circumstances.

‍