Skip to content | Change text size
 

Discipline Committees

Section 3 of the Discipline (Student) - Guidelines

3.1  Procedure of the Faculty Discipline Committee (FDC) and Small Committee of CDC

3.1.1 These Committees will be constituted to inquire into and investigate a charge of academic or general misconduct brought against a student under Statute 4.1.

3.1.2  In the hearing and determination of a charge of student misconduct at first instance:

  1. the character of the proceedings is inquisitorial, not adversarial. Neither the student nor the University is represented and the Committee, led by the Chair, is an active party in the inquiry;
  2. the procedure of the Committee is within the discretion of the Committee;
  3. the Committee is not bound to act in a formal manner and is not bound by the rules of evidence. However, such rules may be useful in determining relevance and/or probative value of evidence;
  4. the Committee may inform itself on any matter and in such manner as it considers just;
  5. the Committee will act in accordance with procedural fairness. (See Guideline 3.4)

3.1.3  Support person

The student may be accompanied, but not represented, by another person. The student is entitled to confer with the support person during the proceedings.

3.2.  Order of Proceedings

3.2.1  The chair reads the charge to the student.

3.2.2  The Chair:

  • gives the background of the proceeding;
  • explains the issues ;
  • summarises the evidence/give names of witnesses to be called;
  • informs the student of any other means by which the Committee intends to inform itself.

3.2.3  The chair asks the student whether the charge is admitted. If the student admits the charge, the student is asked whether he/she would like to submit any evidence in mitigation and/or any information which the committee should take into consideration when determining the penalty to be imposed.

3.2.4  If the student denies the charge, the chair commences the inquiry by putting questions to the student. Other members of the Committee may question the student in turn.

3.2.5  The witnesses, if any, are called. In the presence of the student, questions are put to each witness by the chair and the other members of the committee. The student is then permitted to put questions to the witness.

3.2.6  The student may call witnesses. The student explains why each witness has been called. Questions are put to the witness in accordance with 4.5

3.2.7  Witnesses are excluded when not giving evidence.

3.2.8 The Committee may call for and consider any relevant information such as:

  • a record of a student’s library borrowings;
  • other assignments.

3.2.9   When the Committee has completed its inquiries, the Chair invites the student to address the Committee. The student should be advised not to make submissions for leniency at this stage. (See 3.2.11 below )

3.2.10 The chair asks the student and the student’s support person to leave while the committee makes a determination. This is normally done on the same day but may be deferred if the Committee is waiting on additional information.

3.2.11 The student and the support person are called back and informed of the committee’s finding . If the committee has decided that the student is guilty of the misconduct, the student is given an opportunity to make a submission on the penalty to be imposed.

Submissions from the student

The Committee must assess the credibility and weight of any personal information provided by the student in order to determine an appropriate penalty.

3.2.12  The chair announces the committee’s finding and the penalty to be imposed.

Post Hearing

3.2.13  Letter sent to student advising of Committee’s decision.

3.2.14  Secretary writes Minutes and includes Committee’s findings - Minutes are signed by Chair and placed on file. The Minutes may be referred to on appeal.

3.2.15  At the end of the hearing the Secretary should collect from Committee members hard copies of case documents for safe storage and destruction when no longer required. Committtee members should delete electronic copies of case documents no longer required. 

3.3  Standard of Proof

The standard of proof in discipline proceedings is lower than the standard which applies in criminal courts. The standard of proof required is proof on the balance of probabilities with the proviso that the evidence must produce a reasonable state of satisfaction in one’s mind. (Basser v Medical board, 1981, VR 954)

‘Reasonable satisfaction’ takes into account the nature of the issue and may require a greater level of proof if the issue is more serious in its nature and consequences. For example, it is harder to reach reasonable satisfaction of proof of a student cheating in a final year thesis/ a formal exam, either of which might attract a penalty of suspension or exclusion, than a charge of minor damage to property following a student party.

3.3.1  Plagiarism and evidence of intention to cheat

Plagiarism means to take and use another person’s ideas and/or manner of expressing them and to pass these off as one’s own by failing to give appropriate acknowledgement. Material may be plagiarised from published and unpublished works and from staff and students as well as published authors and is not limited to literary works.

However, plagiarism will only amount to misconduct if the failure to acknowledge the material was intentional i.e. the student was seeking to obtain an unfair advantage in the assessment.

The requisite intention will not have been present for example, if the student misunderstood instructions for a group assignment and believed that the members of the group were permitted to share the research materials/or where a student believed that it was permissible to paraphrase passages from a publication without acknowledgement. Any claim that collaboration was permitted should be checked with the relevant lecturer.

Evidence of any of the following would satisfy an evidential burden regarding intention:

  1. that students in the cohort were given information on how to acknowledge extracts and quotations. The student was present/received written information and should reasonably have known that use of material without acknowledgement was unacceptable;
  2. that the student had submitted similar essays/assignments for assessment and had received feedback from lecturers;
  3. that the student had signed a University pro forma assignment coversheet which included a warning and declaration about plagiarism;
  4. that the student had received a prior warning about plagiarism, or had been disciplined for plagiarism

3.3.2  Submission of similar work

Submission of substantially similar pieces of work is prima facie evidence of cheating (s. 9.4). This does not mean that cheating is ‘deemed’ to have occurred and it does not reverse the onus of proof.

Substantial similarity of work can only occur if the students have

  • copied each other
  • copied another student’s work
  • copied from another source such as a print/internet publication.
  • reproduced their lecture notes

It is not uncommon for each student to claim that the other copied. Both students should be asked if they can provide evidence of authorship eg. prior drafts of the assignment, a record of library borrowings etc. Common defences: the assignment was stolen and returned/ or that the other student borrowed it to read only and that no permission was given for the work to be copied.

If the committee decides that one student copied the other, it might need to decide whether the second student is guilty of ‘assisting to cheat’. However, the lesser charge will only be relevant if the student has been charged in the alternative. (See charge letter in schedule)

If a student claims to have worked independently and to have plagiarised unintentionally from another source, the student should be able to produce proof eg an internet address. The committee would then need to consider whether the student formed the requisite intention to sustain a charge of cheating.

When the students claim that the work was a joint or team project and that they believed they were permitted to submit similar work, the committee should inquire into the instructions given by the lecturer and whether there was any possibility of confusion arising from the instructions.

If the students claim that the similarity of the pieces of work was fortuitous and arose because both relied on their own lecture notes, these claims should be verified by the lecturer.

If the FDC is not satisfied with the explanation provided by a student, it is entitled to find one/all students guilty of cheating on the prima facie evidence either by itself, or in conjunction with other evidence.

3.4  Procedural Fairness

Sometimes referred to as ‘natural justice’. This consists of three broad principles:

  1. the right to have notice of the charges of misconduct prior to the hearing and in reasonable time to prepare a defence;
  2. the right to be heard in answer to those charges;
  3. that the committee act in good faith. This includes freedom from bias and with a mind reasonably open to the evidence placed before it.

The procedures required to satisfy these principles may need to alter in individual cases.

Drafting the Charge

Written notice of the charge (or charges if these have arisen from the same incident) is given to the student in a letter. The charge should contain sufficient information for the student to be able to prepare his/her case. In many cases it will be sufficient to give an outline of the offence only. In another case it might be necessary to provide more detail.

Should a student or a solicitor acting on behalf of the student, ask for further and better particulars of a charge, these should be given.

Only technical or formal amendments should be made to the charge at the hearing e.g. the name or code number of the subject being examined. If an amendment raises any new issues, the hearing should be adjourned to a later date to provide time for the student to prepare material in response.

Seven days notice of a hearing will normally be sufficient. However, 7 days might not be reasonable in all cases and regard should be had to factors such as complexity of the issues, accessibility of evidence and the student’s wish to obtain expert assistance. Should a student elect not to attend a hearing, after reasonable attempts are made to contact the student to understand their non-attendance, if the non-attendance is without adequate explanation and excuse, the hearing may proceed in their absence. Otherwise it may be adjourned to a later date.

Bias

Members of a Discipline Committee should not have a personal relationship with the student or have had any involvement in the incident which is the subject of the charge or have been a member of a Discipline Committee which considered a previous charge of misconduct against the same student.

If the student has been found guilty of misconduct on a previous occasion, this should generally not be considered by the current Discipline Committee until it has reached a decision and is considering penalty. Exceptions arise where the student does not admit the charge and (1) the previous finding indicates conduct using the same modus operandi, or (2) the student denies intentional wrongdoing but the previous finding indicates that the student must have known that the conduct was wrong.

If the student has been charged with additional breaches of misconduct which have not yet been heard, this information must be disregarded by the Committee.

Multiple charges against a student may only be heard by the same committee when the charges have arisen from the one incident. If a student is charged with two or more offences relating to different incidents eg cheating in different exams, the charges must be heard by different committees.

Reasons

The Minutes should record any admissions made by the student and the Committee’s findings on the charges, including the main facts comprising the charges and reasons for these decisions. The Committee’s Minutes should be made available to the student if requested and may be referred to by an appeal committee.

3.5.  Penalties

A Discipline Committee may impose the following penalties :

(See Section 14 of Statute 4.1)

General Misconduct and Assisting to Cheat

  • Reprimand
  • Fine not exceeding $500.
  • Suspension for a specified period
  • Exclusion
  • Paying a sum sufficient to make good any damage caused by the student.

Cheating

  • Reprimand
  • Disallow work by prohibiting assessment or, where work has been marked, annulment of the result
  • Failure in the unit of which the work concerned forms the whole or a part
  • Suspension
  • Exclusion

3.6  Suspension

Suspension must be for a set period which may range from a week to a year(s). The student may re-enrol and resume his/her course at the conclusion of the suspension period without re-applying.

3.7  Exclusion

Exclusion is the most serious penalty the University may impose and should be reserved for offences such as:

  • repeated cheating
  • assisting to cheat for profit
  • acts of violence or intimidation
  • computer trespass, particularly where hacking skills are sophisticated and motive has been malicious.

Exclusion is normally from the course. In certain circumstances, it may be necessary to exclude the student from the University premises, for example, where the student has engaged in conduct which has endangered others or where the pattern of behaviour is consistent with stalking.

Exclusion may be permanent or for a limited period. At the conclusion of the exclusion period, the student may re-apply for entry to a course and may only enrol if offered a place.

3.8  Executing a Decision of a FDC

The secretary to the FDC should advise the student in writing of the outcome of the Hearing including any penalty/s imposed. The notification should include reasons for the decision. If the penalty includes a fine or a payment to make good damage, the student should also be advised that he/she will be issued with an invoice which will include the terms of payment (normally 11 days from the date of invoice before a final notice is issued granting a further 7 days for payment).

The Secretary to the FDC should then contact the Manager, Fees Section, and provide him/her with the Student's ID and details of the fine/damages and ask the Manager to issue an invoice.  If the student fails to pay by the due date, an encumbrance will be placed on the student's record and the student will be notified of the encumbrance.

If the penalty includes suspension or exclusion, the secretary to the FDC should advise the Manager, Enrolment. For international students, the ESOS Compliance Officer must be notified. If exclusion is also from the University premises, the Security Manager should be notified.