Corporate Governance

• Financial Statements
  • 2020-21 (PDF)
  • 2021-22 (PDF)
  • 2022-23 (PDF)
  • 2023-24 (PDF)
  • 2024-25 (PDF)
• Financial Regulations (PDF)
• Student Terms and Conditions (PDF)
• PO Terms and Conditions (PDF)
• Employers Liability Insurance Certificate (PDF)
• Gender Pay Gap Report (PDF)

• Data Protection Policy (PDF)
• Data Privacy Complaints Procedure (PDF)
• Subject Access Request Procedure (PDF)
• Subject Access Request Form (PDF)
• IT Acceptable Use Policy (PDF)
• Social Media Community Guidelines (PDF)

• Whistleblowing Policy (PDF)
• Transparency Tables 2026 (PDF)

• Code of Practice on Freedom of Speech (PDF)

The Prevent Duty, introduced under the Counter‑Terrorism and Security Act 2015, requires universities to have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism. It does not require the suppression of lawful speech, academic debate, or research. Universities must balance Prevent with freedom of speech, academic freedom, and equality legislation.

Core Principles

• Safeguarding first — Prevent is part of the Regent’s wider safeguarding responsibilities
• Proportionate and risk‑based — Measures must be appropriate to a university’s size, context, and risk profile
• Protecting lawful speech — The duty must not be used to restrict debate or challenge, controversial, legal ideas
• Early support, not criminalisation — The aim is to identify vulnerability and provide help, not to penalise individuals. 

To ensure that our actions in relation to the Prevent duty are fair and proportionate, and safeguard the wellbeing of staff and students, we have the following measures in place at Regent’s:

Governance and Leadership

• Prevent is embedded in Regent’s governance via the Prevent Working Group (PWG)
• The PWG approves and reviews the Regent’s Prevent Risk Assessment and Action Plan bi-annually
• Accountability for Prevent is lead by the Prevent Lead (Chief People Officer and Chair of PWG) and Regent’s Safeguarding Lead for Students (Head of Student Experience and Wellbeing). All staff have a role to play in noticing concerns and knowing how to escalate them
• We provide an annual Prevent duty accountability and data return to our regulator, the Office for Students, which includes summaries of events, external speakers and training. 

Staff Awareness and Training

Regent’s ensures mandatory training for all staff on:

• recognising signs of vulnerability
• Safeguarding referral pathways
• balancing Prevent with freedom of speech

Regent’s ensures staff know how to raise concerns.  

All staff have a role to play in noticing concerns and knowing how to escalate them. 

Following an internal safeguarding review, if an individual is identified as being vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism, we would engage with the Channel programme, which provides a multi-agency approach to develop a support plan for the individual concerned. For more information, click here.

If you have a question about Regent’s approach to the Prevent duty, or if you are concerned that a member of staff or a student may be vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism and you wish to discuss this in confidence, you can contact the Governance office: [email protected].  

Regent’s University London is committed to the proper use of funds. As a consequence, it is essential that everyone associated with the University - including staff, students, employees, contractors and third-parties are aware of the risk of fraud, corruption, theft and other activities involving dishonesty, in all its forms and familiarise themselves with relevant University policies.

The University aims to reduce instances of fraud, bribery and corruption to the absolute minimum and to also put in place internal controls and procedures that hold any fraud to a minimum level on an ongoing basis.

The University will investigate all allegations of fraud, bribery and corruption and seek to recover any financial losses which result. The University will report all frauds to the police and material frauds to its regulators.

Modern Slavery Statement (PDF)

Regent's University London has adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition on antisemitism in full, with clarifications recommended by the Home Affairs Select Committee in 2016 to protect freedom of speech. The adoption of the definition was agreed at a meeting of the Vice-Chancellor's Executive Team on 21 September 2021.

Nothing in the adoption of this definition affects in any way the University's commitment to freedom of thought and expression.

The IHRA definition is a useful tool for understanding how antisemitism manifests itself in our society. It will be used as a test to establish whether behaviour that is in breach of the University’s rules is anti-Semitic.

The IHRA definition is as follows:

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

“Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

• Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
• Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
• Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
• Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
• Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
• Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
• Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.
• Applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
• Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
• Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.”

The University has also included the following clarifications “to ensure that freedom of speech is maintained in the context of discourse about Israel and Palestine, without allowing antisemitism to permeate any debate”, as recommended by the Home Affairs Select Committee:

• “It is not anti-Semitic to criticise the government of Israel, without additional evidence to suggest anti-Semitic intent. 
• It is not anti-Semitic to hold the Israeli government to the same standards as other liberal democracies, or to take a particular interest in the Israeli government's policies or actions, without additional evidence to suggest anti-Semitic intent.”

The University holds a zero-tolerance approach to any form of discrimination or intimidation towards any religion or belief.