By Gabriel Princewill
Lawyers acting on behalf of the lecturer of a prominent drama school has threatened this publication with legal action over plans we have to report about a complaint by one of her former students that she subjected her to discriminatory treatment against her as a pupil 12 years ago.
The former pupil was paid a £5,000 good will gesture by RADA , following a complaint she made to the school last December, leading to a long investigation by this publication over the matter.
AD: Capeesh Restaurant
The sum of money was supposedly intended to draw a line over the issue, but this publication was notified about the issue in advance of the money paid.
The complaining student was told by us that we would still pursue the story irrespective of the money offered since it was not an admission of liability, and therefore would not amount to compensation.
The student expressed discontent with the sum of money paid, but stated that the school had made clear that it could not give her any more.
AD: Oysterian Sea Food Restaurant And Bar
Peter Johnson of Alexander JLO Solicitors on behalf of the experienced and highly paid lecturer, engaged The Eye Of Media.Com for four months on the matter, and has now threatened a suit of defamation over the potentially damning article that proposes to feature his client.
JLO firm of solicitors is the longest firm in the Docklands area.
According to Peter Johnson, acting on behalf of the lecturer, it would be defamatory to identify his client in association with the allegations made because the claims are disputed.
Yet, there is no dispute that the good will gestured paid was as a result of the complaint raises questions.
Mr Johnson insists his client was unaware of the allegation and promises to sue this publication in The High Court should his client’s name be mentioned.
Defamation in law occurs where reputational damage is inflicted on an individual as a result of published material that lowers their esteem in the mind of reasonable people.
The primary defense to a defamation suit is truth and public interest; the onus being on defendant parties to demonstrate both to succeed in a case.
JLO lawyers assert that identifying his client in association with allegations she has denied, will be defamatory.
The Eye Of Media disputes the grounds of a legal suit on the grounds that the many of the allegations made were directed at the lecturer, and she has not sought to disprove any of the claims, citing The Data Protection.
The potential of a dramatic court case lingers.
The Data Protection Act affords the subject of an allegation the right to defend themselves with facts for the purposes of an investigation in which a complainant has named them as part of a serious complaint.
The aggrieved former student who was a former Masters pupil at RADA Drama school bitterly complained to the drama school that ill- treatment from the lecturer who is an experienced director contributed to her failing her MA course by four marks, adding that she was unceremoniously dismissed from her course in 2011, with all her complaints at the time ignored.
According to the pupil, whose identity we have anonymized, she was also led to believe that she could not appeal the failed mark. Her lecturer’s representative told this publication that the former pupil had in fact appealed twice, and been unsuccessful on both occasions.
Yet, in a detailed complaint of grievance sent to the new principle of RADA, Niamh Dowling, to which this publication is privy, the student said she was led to believe that she could not appeal the decision, only to later discover this to be untrue.
She further stated that her university emails were suddenly closed down without advance notice to her.
One aspect of her written complaint states that she approached someone at the school by the name of Edward Kemp, who agreed with her that what happened to her as a former student at RADA was wrong. ”On February 2012 my place on the MA Theatre Directing course was terminated and I was unfairly dismissed from RADA, she writes in her complaint.
She further claims one of her former lecturer promised that she would be supported by RADA as a theatre director and given the opportunity to complete an MA course after the lockdown.
If this is not possible the alternative would be to discuss compensation”, she says.
She wrote that even though she had been listed to attend the 2012 Sam Wanamaker Festival Directors Day on Saturday the 14th starting at 1.00pm finishing at 6.00pm, she was instructed not to attend the director’s day through a letter sent by the Events and Courses Support Assistant.
According to the pupil, another director asked for permission to go to Berlin to meet a dramaturg and was granted the permission to go and miss classes for a week including the theatre history class.
Describing a pattern of discriminatory treatment against her, the disgruntled pupil claimed to have been forced to work while being ill, and excluded from seeing certain shows open other directors to watch.
The student describes being the subject of a chronic level of bullying, as she was denied benefits afforded to others. She claims to have also been told that she is not intellectual enough and needs to spend more time focusing on her studies than being in Church On Sundays.
JLO Solicitors said their client was not notified of the complaint, making it strange why the school had paid a out £5,000.
The complainant who wanted a larger sum for compensation, was told she would have to go to the school’s larger affiliate, Kings College London, but fell for the allure of the immediate sum available without the power to simultaneously abort the story with this publication, since the payment was not compensatory.
The pupil also claimed to have lost £14,000 in school fees she on top of the shortfall of potential earnings since then compared to her present earnings. That’s all on the hypothetical grounds that her complaints were legitimate
There are no facts to support the substance of the allegations made, except that their communication to the school led to a payment of money, strangely, without the subject of the investigation being confronted at all.
The complainant in her best efforts to salvage some of the damages she claims to have sustained, asked this publication to allow enough time for her to present a play for consideration, to bolster her CV in the industry before we publish on the story.
She said she had sent her script to the school for consideration, asking us to allow time for her play to be approved- a request we deemed impractical.
The former pupil, half way through her engagement with the prominent drama school, tried to withdraw the story from publication, but having been furnished both verbally and in writing with all the details of the case, we deemed it in public interest to publish the story.
RADA has been asked to explain why it gave £5,000 to the aggrieved student without approaching the lecturer in question about whom the pupil bitterly complained.
The lecturer has been asked to address each claim contained in the allegation.
Through her lawyers, the lecturer has denied all the allegations, insisting that the pupil appealed the failed mark twice.
RADA declined to comment.
AD: Heritage And Restaurant Lounge Bar