University of Bristol

Other public bodies · University

Request correction

First report 2 May 2019•Latest report 12 Dec 2019

Reports, concerns and published responses

Reports over time

Reports naming this recipient by issue year.

* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.

Reports: 2
Published responses: 50%
Concerns addressed: 2
Stated actions: 10

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from University of Bristol linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

12 Dec2019
Derby and Derbyshire
Concerns raised3
1. Lack of required tutor meetings after examination failure
2. Failure to monitor student engagement and identify struggling mathematics students early
3. Lack of enforceable participation requirements for lectures, tutorials and homework
No linked response statements
No action or position from this recipient is clearly linked to the concerns in this report.
AI-generated summary

Raees Osman Rauf · Prevention of Future Deaths report

This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

Report summary

Raees Osman Rauf was a mathematics student at the University of Bristol who took his own life with a shotgun to the head on 12 September 2018. The report raised concerns that non-mandatory attendance and homework, limited monitoring and face-to-face contact, and the ability to require withdrawal without such contact made it difficult to identify and support struggling students.

Read the report on judiciary.uk
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to University of Bristol; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of required tutor meetings after examination failure
Wider context from the report
“1. The University accepted during the course of the inquest that, due to the non-mandatory nature of tutorials and homework, within the School of Mathematics, it was difficult to assess whether a student was struggling until examination failures unless they specifically brought issues to the attention of the university themselves; 2. During the first year of the mathematics degree, students were not required to attend lectures or weekly tutorials, and weekly homework set was not mandatory. As a result of this there were no sanctions, or requirements to meet with form tutors or other tutors within the School of Mathematics at any point within the year; 3. There is no requirement to meet with a tutor at the school of mathematics after failure of an examination; 4. During the second year there was significantly less opportunity to have contact with the students. This was due to the fact that there were no weekly tutorials with personal tutors. There were lectures each week, for all School of Mathematics students however, attendance was not monitored and was not mandatory. Therefore, sometimes you only notice after exams if a student is really struggling; ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to University of Bristol; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to monitor student engagement and identify struggling mathematics students early
Wider context from the report
“1. The University accepted during the course of the inquest that, due to the non-mandatory nature of tutorials and homework, within the School of Mathematics, it was difficult to assess whether a student was struggling until examination failures unless they specifically brought issues to the attention of the university themselves; 2. During the first year of the mathematics degree, students were not required to attend lectures or weekly tutorials, and weekly homework set was not mandatory. As a result of this there were no sanctions, or requirements to meet with form tutors or other tutors within the School of Mathematics at any point within the year; 3. There is no requirement to meet with a tutor at the school of mathematics after failure of an examination; 4. During the second year there was significantly less opportunity to have contact with the students. This was due to the fact that there were no weekly tutorials with personal tutors. There were lectures each week, for all School of Mathematics students however, attendance was not monitored and was not mandatory. Therefore, sometimes you only notice after exams if a student is really struggling; ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to University of Bristol; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of enforceable participation requirements for lectures, tutorials and homework
Wider context from the report
“1. The University accepted during the course of the inquest that, due to the non-mandatory nature of tutorials and homework, within the School of Mathematics, it was difficult to assess whether a student was struggling until examination failures unless they specifically brought issues to the attention of the university themselves; 2. During the first year of the mathematics degree, students were not required to attend lectures or weekly tutorials, and weekly homework set was not mandatory. As a result of this there were no sanctions, or requirements to meet with form tutors or other tutors within the School of Mathematics at any point within the year; 3. There is no requirement to meet with a tutor at the school of mathematics after failure of an examination; 4. During the second year there was significantly less opportunity to have contact with the students. This was due to the fact that there were no weekly tutorials with personal tutors. There were lectures each week, for all School of Mathematics students however, attendance was not monitored and was not mandatory. Therefore, sometimes you only notice after exams if a student is really struggling; ”
Open source report
2 May2019
Avon
Concerns raised2
1. Failure to ensure that mental health disclosure is de-stigmatised and does not deter university admission
2. Lack of post-death investigation reports for student deaths
Actions described in response 3
1. Action
  Oversee serious-incident reviews for qualifying suicides and serious attempted suicides from September 2019.
2. Action
  Provide applicants and students with regular prompts encouraging disclosure of mental-health difficulties and explaining how disclosures are used.
3. Action
  Support UCAS in developing alternative ways to encourage mental-health and disability declarations and reduce barriers to disclosure.
AI-generated summary

Benjamin James Charles MURRAY · Prevention of Future Deaths report

This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

Report summary

On 5 May 2018, Ben was found beneath the Clifton suspension bridge after walking onto the bridge, climbing onto the buttress wall and propelling himself forward. The inquest concluded that his death was suicide. The report raised concerns about mental health disclosure by university applicants, the pastoral role of universities during transition to higher education, and the absence of university investigation reports following a student death.

Read the report on judiciary.uk
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to University of Bristol; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to ensure that mental health disclosure is de-stigmatised and does not deter university admission
Wider context from the report
“2. For UCAS, The Department of Education and The Minister for Suicide Prevention The concern over mental health disclosure either on the UCAS application form or indeed to a prospective University. I am told that currently such disclosure is at 37%. There needs to be a move towards de-stigmatising mental health and ensuring that students are made aware that by disclosing mental health problems on their UCAS form or to their prospective University that it will not affect getting a place at University. ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to University of Bristol; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of post-death investigation reports for student deaths
Wider context from the report
“3. For Bristol University, The Department of Education and The Minister for Suicide Prevention The transition from home to University can be a challenging time for some students and Universities clearly have the primary role of education however this inquest has demonstrated they also carry out an important pastoral role. It is not the role of the Coroner to investigate Ben’s journey through University in light of the circumstances of his tragic death and the limited scope. That said as a Coroner has a duty to consider prevention of future deaths it was appropriate in this case that aspects of Ben’s progress were investigated by me. In addition currently the University sector does not carry out an investigation report (such as a root cause analysis or sudden untoward investigation) after a death of a student. Such a written report usually affords an opportunity to review what happened; what was done well/the good practice points; areas of concern, if there are any, and importantly what lessons can be learned often with a formal written action plan. Such a document is also very helpful to the Coroner when considering and discharging this duty. Such a formal process and document most importantly assists in preventing future deaths. ”
Open source report
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Oversee serious-incident reviews for qualifying suicides and serious attempted suicides from September 2019.

Verbatim wording from the response
“As part of its role from September 2019 the SPRG will oversee the undertaking of a serious incident review for every suicide or serious attempted suicide involving a high mortality method or admission to intensive care. This will be based on practice in the NHS and other HEIs. An incident review report will include relevant information about the student, their interactions with the University and noting what went well in providing support and where there is possibility for improvement. Should a death occur, information gathered about the student will also be added to our suicide audit tool which aims to identify any trends over time that may inform future suicide prevention. It will also form the basis of information provided to assist with Coroner’s Inquests.”

Source location
2019-0155-Response-by-University-of-Bristol
Page 2 · response
Published 28 July 2019
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Provide applicants and students with regular prompts encouraging disclosure of mental-health difficulties and explaining how disclosures are used.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The University also provides regular prompts to applicants and students during their time at the University about the benefits of disclosing any mental health difficulties and reassures them that this will have no impact on their application or studies but will be used to support them.”

Source location
2019-0155-Response-by-University-of-Bristol
Page 2 · response
Published 28 July 2019
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Support UCAS in developing alternative ways to encourage mental-health and disability declarations and reduce barriers to disclosure.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The University is supporting UCAS in its endeavours to find alternative ways of encouraging declarations and reducing the barriers to declarations about extenuating or mitigating circumstances as well as any mental health concerns, or other disabilities.”

Source location
2019-0155-Response-by-University-of-Bristol
Page 2 · response
Published 28 July 2019
Open published response

Information checked against published PFD reports and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Data last updated 7 September 2026

Reports, concerns and published responses

Reports over time

Concerns raised3

Lack of required tutor meetings after examination failure

Failure to monitor student engagement and identify struggling mathematics students early

Lack of enforceable participation requirements for lectures, tutorials and homework

Concerns raised2

Failure to ensure that mental health disclosure is de-stigmatised and does not deter university admission

Lack of post-death investigation reports for student deaths

Actions described in response An action is something this recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.3

Actions described in response 3