It mentions a disability but I can’t see what it was. Mental? Physical?
PTSD, in the article.
Edit You may be thinking to yourself, “So, the mental illness she’s citing is from the rape case? How does that make sense?” Well, since it took 3 years from the assault to the tribunal, it seems a lot more reasonable.
I feel like it would make more sense if they’d called it mental anguish rather than mental illness, though one begat the other.
The wording made it seem like they had ignored her partly due to an existing (prior the assault) disability rather than their lack of response and/or stonewalling causing said disability/harm.
Cases like this will always be hard because the lack of concrete evidence often does devolve it into being down to the word of the accuser and accused, but it also sounds like this particular verdict also centered around her not being provided the appropriate resources to have the case taken to the right people.
Lack of timely access to those resources would also have eroded the likelihood of finding additional evidence, supporting testimony etc. It’s easy to not find “insufficient evidence” if you let enough time pass that it’s all gone, or don’t actually bother looking into it.