Akua Reindorf also shared with witnesses that she had been asked to preserve their anonymity where required (see further details in the Review Feedback Mechanisms and Process document exhibited at page 1652 of the open bundle and page 644 of the closed bundle). The published version of the Report seeks carefully to respect the confidentiality assurances provided for, as one would expect. Therefore, it is clear to me that any individuals who were interviewed as part of the Review would have had the reasonable expectation that the information they were providing would not be disclosed outside of the Review process or as part of the Report. 84.Given the polarising nature of the public debate surrounding the Events, it is likely that many of the individuals who contributed to the Review would be extremely concerned if their views were ultimately made public. I consider this would be the case whether or not the individual could be identified: given how strongly views are held on both sides of the argument and the potential for attacks to become very personalised, individuals who contributed to the Review may become distressed at the very thought that their views were in the public domain. It should be noted that confidentiality assurances were provided to individuals who contributed to the Review not just in respect of their identities but in respect of the content of their contributions." 91. From the document referred to by Mr Morris starting at page 1652 of the Bundle we noted for example that: 33 people were interviewed of which 2 were anonymous (1653)  there were 12 written submission of which 5 were anonymous (1653)  in a template of an email used to invite potential witnesses to be interviewed they were told (1667):“I have been asked to take evidence anonymously from anybody who requests that I do so. If you would like to participate anonymously, please let me know and I will ensure that you are not named in the report and that your identity is not disclosed to the University. However I may ultimately have to disclose the identities of people who have given evidence anonymously if I am required by law to do so (for example if any litigation arises from the review and a court orders me to disclose the identities). If you wish to maintain your anonymity completely, the only way to do so is to ensure that I do not know your identity. In that case, you should send me written representations in a hard copy document which contains no identifying material. You can place this into a blank envelope within a second, outer envelope addressed to ‘External event reviewer, c/o the Office of the Vice- 25