Policy

Student Integrity and Misconduct - Policy

Printer-friendly version
Body

1. Purpose and Objectives

1.1. The University is committed to excellence of learning experiences and outcomes for its students. It aims to provide a learning environment that fosters and instils in all students the qualities of independent scholarly learning, critical judgment, academic integrity and ethical sensitivity.

All University community members share responsibility for maintaining the academic standing of the University. As such, students have a responsibility to maintain the highest standards of academic integrity in their work and ensure they appropriately acknowledge the ideas, interpretations, words or creative works of others.

To facilitate the achievement of academic integrity, University staff must cultivate, with their students, a climate of mutual respect for original work and a clear understanding of standards for academic integrity.

1.2 This policy is based on the principle that dealings among members of the University community should be one of mutual respect.

1.3 This policy is part of the process by which the University encourages adherence to this principle in the context of student behaviour. The University encourages students to behave in a way that —

(a) allows reasonable freedom to others to pursue their studies, research, duties and other lawful activities in the University and on its sites, and to participate in the life of the University;

(b) recognises that the pursuit of academic excellence is a key aim of the University; and

(c) promotes the proper use of University facilities and information and the property of other persons on its sites.

1.4 The objectives of this policy are to —

(a) promote the principle of mutual respect by informing students of behaviour which the University community considers appropriate;

(b) discourage behaviour which the University community considers inappropriate;

(c) implement fair and just procedures for dealing with possible cases of misconduct; and

(d) provide for the imposition and enforcement of penalties for misconduct.

2. Definitions, Terms, Acronyms

academic integrity - is the moral code or ethical policy of academia. This includes values such as avoidance of cheating or plagiarism; maintenance of academic standards; honesty and rigor in research and academic publishing.

academic misconduct - is conduct on the part of a student that is defined as academic misconduct in section 6.1.

Academic Registrar - the Academic Registrar of the University.

Campus Director - the Gatton Campus Director.

cancellation of enrolment - the cancellation of a student’s enrolment in all courses or programs at the University.

cheating - occurs when a student acts before, during or after an assessment or examination in such a way as to seek to gain unfair advantage or assist another student to do so and includes, but is not limited to –

(a) plagiarising the work of another person and presenting that work as if it is the student's own work, without appropriate acknowledgement;

(b) colluding with other students on individual assessment items;

(c) fabricating data or inventing references;

(d) bringing unauthorised material into an examination without the permission of the supervisor or leaving the material with the examination supervisor immediately on entering an examination;

(e) submitting the same work or recycling work without prior permission of the course coordinator;

(f) violating policies and procedures and rules governing administration of examinations;

(g) violating any policies and procedures and rules relating to academic conduct of a course or program.

Chief Operating Officer - the Chief Operating Officer of the University.

collusion - when two or more students, or a student and any other person(s), act together to cheat, plagiarise or engage in other academic misconduct, or incite others to do so.

decision-maker - an officer or body listed as a decision-maker under sections 8.1 and 8.2 or section 9 of this policy.

Deputy Head of School - a Deputy Head of School of the University.

Disciplinary Board - the Disciplinary Board as defined in section 10.1.

Executive Dean - the Executive Dean of a Faculty of the University.

expulsion - a student is expelled from the University and is prohibited from enrolling in any courses or programs at the University.

general misconduct - is conduct on the part of a student that is defined as general misconduct in section 6.2.

Head of Halls - the Head of Halls of Residence, Gatton Campus.

Head of School - a Head of School of the University.

Institute Director - the director of the relevant University Institute.

Integrity Officer - the officially appointed academic staff member who promotes the values and practice of academic integrity to students and staff, provides guidance to academic staff about the delivery of educational strategies associated with academic integrity, and provides guidance and support to decision-makers in relation to student academic misconduct. A person appointed to this role must be:

(a) at school level - the chair of the School Teaching and Learning Committee, or their written nominee;

(b) at faculty level - the Associate Dean (Academic), or their written nominee;

(c) for the graduate school – the Deputy Dean of the Graduate School, or their written nominee;

(d) for institutes - the Director of Post-Graduate Studies; and

(e) for general misconduct matters associated with the Halls of Residence - Gatton Campus, the Manager, Residential Programs is the appointed Integrity Officer.

legally qualified - a person who holds a degree or formal training in law (e.g. LLB or JD equivalent) and/ or a person admitted or qualified to be an Australian lawyer as defined by the relevant legislation.

plagiarism - the act of misrepresenting as one's own original work the ideas, interpretations, words or creative works of another either intentionally or unintentionally. These include published and unpublished documents, designs, music, sounds, images, photographs, computer codes and ideas gained through working in a group. These ideas, interpretations, words or works may be found in print and/or electronic media.

policy - a Senate approved policy as adopted from time to time.

poor academic practice – is a minor instance of academic misconduct and is determined with reference to a student’s experience, intent and all other reasonable circumstances.

preliminary investigation - a preliminary investigation to consider whether there is evidence that a student engaged in misconduct under section 7.3.

procedural fairness - requires the procedures used by a decision-maker in dealing with an allegation of misconduct to be fair and requires –

(a) a hearing appropriate to the level of alleged misconduct; and

(b) a lack of bias on behalf of the decision-maker; and

(c) evidence to support a finding of misconduct.

research misconduct - a failure to comply with the principles or specific provisions of University policies relating to the conduct of research and includes but is not limited to conduct in, or in connection with, research that is dishonest, reckless or persistently negligent; and/or seriously deviates from accepted standards within the research and scholarly community for proposing, conducting or reporting research. Examples of research misconduct include –

(a) fabrication of data or results;

(b) falsification of data or results;

(c) plagiarism of data, results, or written outputs;

(d) redundant or duplicate publication of data, results, or written outputs;

(e) failure to declare or adequately manage risk to the safety of human participants, or the wellbeing of animals or the environment;

(f) misleading ascription of authorship to a publication including listing authors without their permission, attributing work to people who did not contribute to the publication, omission of people eligible to be authors, lack of appropriate acknowledgement of work primarily produced by others;

(g) failure to disclose conflicts of interest or cases where a conflict of interest might reasonably be perceived to exist;

(h) falsification or misrepresentation to obtain funding;

(i) conducting research without required ethics approval as required by the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Research Involving Humans and the Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes; and

(j) wilful concealment or facilitation of research misconduct by others.

Senate Discipline Appeals Committee – the Senate Discipline Appeals Committee as defined in section 10.2.

student – means a person enrolled as a student at the University or undertaking courses or programs at the University at the time of the alleged academic or general misconduct.

student file – hard copy and electronic information which is maintained by Records and Archives Management Services (RAMS) and relates to a student during their time of enrolment with The University of Queensland.

support person – a person accompanying a student at a misconduct hearing.

suspension – means a student is suspended from entering the University’s land, sites or part of the land or sites or engaging in an activity as a student of the University for the duration of the suspension.

University – The University of Queensland.

Vice-Chancellor – the Vice-Chancellor of the University.

3. Policy Scope/Coverage

This policy applies to all students.

4. Policy Statement

4.1 Students must conduct themselves in a manner consistent with the standards of behaviour set out in the student charter and the higher degree by research candidate charter. These standards of behaviour are intended to promote the highest standards of honesty and academic integrity and to promote the good order and management of the University.

4.2 Disciplinary action for misconduct will be taken under this policy in accordance with the following principles –

(a) Disciplinary procedures must be fair and just, and consistent with the requirements of procedural fairness.

(b) Penalties imposed for misconduct must be appropriate and proportionate.

(c) Decision-making on misconduct will be carried out in accordance with appropriate levels of responsibility within the University.

(d) The initial focus of decision-making is on whether there is evidence of misconduct, with judgments of intentionality being taken into account in determining any penalty that might be applied.

(e) Confidentiality must be respected and maintained by all parties within the constraints of the need to hear a misconduct allegation or fully investigate misconduct allegations subject to any legal requirements for disclosure and consistent with the principles of natural justice and in accordance with other University policies, procedures and guidelines.

4.3 Conflicts of interest

Staff involved in misconduct or appeals processes must disclose actual, perceived or potential conflicts of interest (whether personal, financial or otherwise) as soon as they become aware of them.

5. Student Rights

In accordance with the requirements of procedural fairness, students have the right to –

(a) have a case of alleged misconduct dealt with as promptly as possible;

(b) receive a copy of, or an opportunity to inspect, all relevant evidence held by the decision-maker;

(c) be given an opportunity to appear before the decision-maker to answer the allegation;

(d) appeal a decision to a designated person or body who is not the decision-maker.

6. Student Misconduct

6.1 Definition of academic misconduct

6.1.1 Academic misconduct is conduct on the part of a student (including conduct during practicums or placements in their capacity as a student of the University) that —

(a) hinders the pursuit of academic excellence and includes cheating, collusion and plagiarism;

(b) seeks to gain for himself or herself, or for any other person, any academic advantage or advancement through the improper use of University facilities, information or the intellectual property of others; or

(c) constitutes research misconduct.

6.1.2 Without limiting the generality of section 6.1.1, instances of academic misconduct include –

(a) making a false representation as to a matter affecting a student as a student;

(b) tampering, or attempting to tamper, with examination scripts, class work, grades or class records;

(c) failing to abide by reasonable directions of a member of academic staff in relation to academic matters, including directions regarding individual responsibility for the submission of assessable work or any other direction by academic staff relating to the undertaking of courses or assessment at the University;

(d) acquiring, or attempting to acquire, possess, or distribute examination materials or information without approval;

(e) impersonating another student, or arranging for anyone to impersonate a student, in an examination or other assessment task;

(f) altering or falsifying any document that the University requires of the student (eg. medical certificate or other supporting documentation) for the purposes of gaining academic advantage;

(g) altering group assessment work of participating students without the collaborating students’ consent; or

(h) failing to comply with a penalty imposed under this policy.

 

6.2 Definition of general misconduct

6.2.1 General misconduct is conduct on the part of a student that –

(a) impairs the reasonable freedom of others to pursue their studies, research, duties and other lawful activities in the University or on University land or sites or to participate in the life of the University; or

(b) amounts to improper use of University facilities or information or improper use of the property of others on University land or sites.

6.2.2 Without limiting the generality of section 6.2.1, instances of general misconduct include conduct where a student is –

(a) contravening any provision of the University of Queensland Act 1998, statutes or policies;

(b) behaving in a manner that prejudices the reputation of the University;

(c) engaging in unlawful or criminal activity on University land or sites;

(d) engaging in conduct contrary to the relevant placement policy, procedure or agreement during practicums or placements in their capacity as a student of the University;

(e) damaging or destroying University property (including without limitation library books, or computing hardware or software by deliberately releasing computer viruses or in some other way);

(f) misusing University facilities, systems and equipment, to engage in illegal activity or activity prohibited by the University's rules and policies (eg. computer hacking or infringing copyright);

(g) stealing, removing or misappropriating University property or equipment;

(h) harassing, vilifying, bullying, abusing, threatening, assaulting or endangering staff, students or other members of the University's community directly or by other means of communication;

(i) unreasonably disrupting staff or students or others from undertaking their normal activities at the University;

(j) failing to follow reasonable directions of an employee of the University;

(k) altering, falsifying or fabricating any document or record of the University (eg. altering an academic transcript);

(l) altering or falsifying any documentation that the University requires of the student (eg. medical certificate or other supporting documentation);

(m) divulging confidential or personal information relating to any University matter, staff member or student (eg. employment records, in-camera committee discussions) in circumstances where there is no reasonable or lawful excuse for doing so;

(n) behaving inappropriately in an activity (eg. in the virtual and physical environments such as e-learning sites, face to face classes or meetings), in a facility in or under the control or supervision of the University or a recognised University student association;

(o) refusing or is unable to identify him/herself or produce a Student ID card when asked to do so by an officer of the University (eg. security officer, examination invigilator);

(p) knowingly providing false or misleading information to staff of the University;

(q) using taped, recorded or videotaped lectures, tutorials or other classes in a way that infringes another person’s privacy or the University’s or any other person’s intellectual property rights (eg. by publishing or distributing a recording without permission); or

(r) failing to comply with a penalty imposed under this policy.

 

6.3 Attempt to commit misconduct

A student who attempts to commit misconduct is guilty of misconduct.

6.4 Levels of misconduct

6.4.1 Student misconduct is determined according to a system of three levels of misconduct –

(a) level 1 – minimal;

(b) level 2 – moderate; and

(c) level 3 – serious.

6.4.2 The levels of misconduct determine which decision-maker decides an allegation of student misconduct and the available penalties.

6.4.3 A decision-maker who has a conflict of interest must refer the alleged misconduct to an appropriate decision-maker at the same or higher level. The appointed decision-maker will then hear the allegation in place of the original decision-maker but will apply the same level of misconduct as the original decision-maker.

 

7. Reporting and Referral of Allegations of Misconduct

7.1 Reporting a complaint of misconduct generally

Any person may report a complaint of misconduct by a student to the student’s Course Coordinator, Deputy Head of School, Head of School, Executive Dean, Dean of the Graduate School, Academic Registrar or the Chair of the Disciplinary Board.

7.2 Third Party Notifier

7.2.1 If a person reports a complaint of alleged misconduct, an acknowledgement letter of receipt will be issued.

7.2.2 An acknowledgement letter of a reported instance of alleged misconduct must include:

(a) the date the report was received and a brief description of the alleged misconduct;

(b) reference to the Privacy Management Policy and Procedures PPL 1.60.02;

(c) reference to the Student Integrity and Misconduct Policy and Guidelines PPL 3.60.03 and the confidentiality of misconduct matters; and

(d) a statement that the outcome of the University’s enquiries or investigations will not be advised to the Notifier.

7.3 Dealing with a complaint of misconduct

7.3.1 A member of staff who receives a complaint under section 7.1 in relation to –

(a)  academic misconduct must –

(i)   refer the complaint to a relevant integrity officer; and

(ii)  in consultation with the integrity officer, conduct a preliminary investigation in a timely manner;

(b)  general misconduct must –

(i)   refer the complaint to the Academic Registrar; and

(ii)  in consultation with the Academic Registrar, conduct a preliminary investigation in a timely manner.

7.3.2 If a complaint raises an allegation which may be regarded as either academic or general misconduct, then the allegation will be treated as academic misconduct.

7.3.3 Upon finalisation of the preliminary investigation into a complaint in relation to –

(a) academic misconduct, a person who received the complaint must provide a report to an integrity officer;

(b) general misconduct, a person who received the complaint must provide a report to the Academic Registrar.

7.3.4 The Academic Registrar may authorise another University employee to exercise his or her powers under this section.

 

7.4 No case to answer

After receiving the preliminary investigation report, the Integrity Officer or the Academic Registrar may, in his or her discretion, taking into consideration the preliminary investigation report, find that further investigation and/or action under this policy is not warranted.

7.5 Counselling for alleged misconduct

7.5.1 After receiving the preliminary investigation report in relation to alleged academic misconduct, the Integrity Officer may in his or her discretion decide to counsel a student if -

(a) the student engaged in inadvertent, unintentional and minor academic misconduct; or

(b) the student engaged in poor academic practice; and

(c) the student has not previously been counselled for a matter of a similar nature.

7.5.2 If the decision is made to counsel a student under 7.5.1, that counselling may include:

(a) the provision of advice on remediation directly to the student;

(b) the referral of the student to further services for guidance and advice to remediate their performance.

7.5.3 If the matter involves the insertion of inappropriately referenced material in an item of assessment, the options are to either:

(a) have the work marked as submitted, excluding from consideration in that marking, any material that had not been referenced appropriately; and/or

(b) require the student to resubmit the corrected work to demonstrate their improved understanding of appropriate referencing without any opportunity to improve the mark assigned for the original submission.

7.5.4 After receiving the preliminary investigation report in relation to alleged general misconduct, the Academic Registrar may in his or her discretion decide to counsel a student if the student’s conduct was inadvertent or unintentional and it is appropriate to counsel the student, giving consideration to the nature of the allegation and the disciplinary record of the student.

7.5.5 Counselling under this section does not form part of the student’s disciplinary record.

7.5.6 The Academic Registrar may authorise another University employee to exercise his or her powers under this section.

7.5.7 A student who declines to accept the counselling issued under section 7.5, including any requirement to revise and resubmit assessment, will have the complaint made against them referred to a decision-maker for consideration under section 7.6 of the policy.

 

7.6 Referral of alleged misconduct

7.6.1 If the Integrity Officer or Academic Registrar does not decide to counsel a student under section 7.5, or if the student fails to accept the counselling offered under 7.5, the Integrity Officer or Academic Registrar must refer the allegation to the relevant decision-maker, giving consideration to the nature of the allegation and the disciplinary record of the student.

7.6.2 The Integrity Officer or Academic Registrar must refer an allegation of misconduct to a relevant decision-maker within 5 business days of completion of the preliminary investigation.

7.6.3 The Academic Registrar may authorise another University employee to exercise his or her powers under this section.

8. Decision-making

8.1 Decision-makers for academic misconduct

The decision-makers for each level of academic misconduct are –

(a) level 1 – the relevant Head of School, the Deputy Head of School or the Institute Director; and

(b) level 2 – the relevant Executive Dean or the Dean of the Graduate School; and

(c) level 3 – the Disciplinary Board or the Senate Discipline Appeals Committee.

8.2 Decision-makers for general misconduct

8.2.1 The decision-makers for each level of general misconduct are –

(a) level 1 – the relevant Head of School, the Deputy Head of School, the Dean of the Graduate School, the Institute Director, the Head of Halls, the Academic Registrar, the Librarian or the Director of Information Technology Services; and

(b) level 2 – the relevant Executive Dean, the Dean of the Graduate School, the Institute Director, the Campus Director, or the Academic Registrar; and

(c) level 3 – the Academic Registrar, the Disciplinary Board or the Senate Discipline Appeals Committee.

8.2.2 The Head of Halls and the Campus Director may only act in their respective levels of general misconduct where they concern general misconduct occurring in the Halls of Residence at the Gatton Campus.

8.3 Allegation notices

8.3.1 If an allegation is referred to a decision-maker following a preliminary investigation under section 7.3, the decision-maker must issue an allegation notice to the student within 14 business days.

8.3.2 An allegation notice must include –

(a) a description of the alleged student misconduct and the circumstances in which the alleged misconduct occurred; and

(b) the date, time and location of the hearing; and

(c) a statement inviting the student to attend the hearing and advising that the student may be accompanied by a support person who is not legally qualified subject to the decision-maker also having the discretion to allow the presence of a legally qualified support person; and

(d) a statement that the hearing may proceed in the student’s absence if the student does not attend the hearing.

8.3.3 After receiving an allegation notice, a student may request a copy of all documentation containing the substantive material on which the allegation is based from the relevant decision-maker.

8.3.4 A decision-maker who receives a request under section 8.3.3 must provide the student with a copy of the documentation or access to view the documentation within a reasonable time before the hearing.

8.4 Time limit to decide case

A decision-maker must decide a case of alleged misconduct within 20 business days from the date the allegation notice was issued or within a longer period if the student and the Academic Registrar agree.

8.5 Conduct of hearings

8.5.1 Subject to this section, the decision-maker must conduct a hearing for the allegation in the manner that the decision-maker considers appropriate in accordance with the requirements of procedural fairness.

8.5.2 The student is entitled to be accompanied by a support person who is not legally qualified subject to the decision-maker also having the discretion to allow the presence of a legally qualified support person.

8.5.3 At the hearing, the decision-maker must –

(a) give the student a copy of, or an opportunity to inspect, all substantive material evidence associated with the allegation of misconduct (if not already provided); and

(b) give the student a reasonable opportunity to appear before the decision-maker to answer the allegations, and in particular, to comment on the substantive material on which the allegation is based; and

(c) consider any written or oral statements made by the student in relation to the allegation of misconduct; and

(d) maintain order in the hearing and, for this purpose, the decision-maker has the power to order the removal of a person, including a student or the person accompanying the student (if any).

8.5.4 If the decision-maker’s deliberations indicate that more information about the allegation is required, the decision-maker may recall the student and the person accompanying the student (if any) to provide the information or to hear and comment on it.

8.6 Basis for decision

In considering a case of alleged misconduct, a decision-maker must make a decision based on findings of facts that are established on sound reasoning and relevant evidence.

8.7 Decision-maker may refer matter

8.7.1 If the decision-maker forms the view the allegation was not referred to the appropriate decision-maker for the level of misconduct, the decision-maker may, at any time before making a decision in relation to an allegation of misconduct, refer

(a) an allegation of academic misconduct to an Integrity Officer; or

(b) an allegation of general misconduct to the Academic Registrar.

8.7.2 The Integrity Officer or Academic Registrar to whom the allegation has been referred to under section 8.7.1 must –

(a) give consideration to the nature of the allegation; and

(b) take into account the disciplinary record of the student; and

(c) decide to either -

(i)  counsel the student under section 7.3 of this policy; or

(ii) refer the allegation of misconduct to a more relevant decision-maker.

8.7.3 If an allegation is referred to a decision-maker under section 8.7.2, the decision-maker must issue a new allegation notice in accordance with section 8.3.2.

8.8 Penalties available for academic misconduct

Penalties that may be imposed by a decision-maker are based on the three levels of academic misconduct as follows –

(a) level 1 academic misconduct – a decision-maker may impose one or more of the following penalties for level 1 academic misconduct –

(i)    a written warning;

(ii)   remedial activity, which may include a range of educational activities such as attendance at workshops or completion of an online tutorial;

(iii)   if the academic misconduct involved the use of school facilities or services, suspension for a period not exceeding 1 week from school facilities or services;

(iv)  requirement for the student to resubmit or revise the assessment item in relation to which misconduct occurred by a specified date;

(v)  zero marks in relation to a specific component of a piece of assessment which is the subject of the academic misconduct;

(vi)  zero marks for the piece of assessment in which misconduct occurred; or

(vii) imposition of a limit on the grade the student may be awarded in the course in which misconduct occurred; or

(b) level 2 academic misconduct – a decision-maker may impose one or more of the following penalties for level 2 academic misconduct –

(i)  any level 1 penalty;

(ii) if the academic misconduct involved the use of faculty facilities or services, suspension for a period of no longer than one week from the faculty facilities or services;

(iii) zero marks for the piece of assessment in which misconduct occurred (with or without the requirement for the student to resubmit or revise the assessment to an acceptable standard by a specified date for which no marks may be awarded);

(iv) refusal or cancellation of credit for the course in relation to which misconduct occurred;

(v)  annulment of a thesis examination report; or

(c) level 3 academic misconduct – a decision-maker may impose one or more of the following penalties for level 3 academic misconduct –

(i)   any level 1 or 2 penalty;

(ii) if the academic misconduct involved the use of school or faculty facilities or services, suspension for up to 5 years from the school or faculty facilities or services;

(iii) refusal or cancellation of credit for any course or courses (in which a grade of G or M may be applied - see explanation of grades);

(iv) cancellation of enrolment and refusal to re-enrol at the University for a specified period not exceeding 5 years;

(v)  expulsion from the University.

(d) Any study undertaken at another tertiary institution during the period for which the student is subject to 8.8(c)(iv) or 8.8(c)(v) will not count for credit towards any program of the University.

 

8.9 Penalties available for general misconduct

Penalties that may be imposed by a decision-maker are based on the three levels of general misconduct as follows –

(a) level 1 general misconduct – a decision-maker may impose one or more of the following penalties for level 1 general misconduct –

(i)  a written warning;

(ii) suspension for a period not exceeding 1 week from school, library or information technology facilities or services; or

(b) level 2 general misconduct – a decision-maker may impose one or more of the following penalties for level 2 general misconduct –

(i)   any level 1 general misconduct penalty;

(ii)  suspension for a period not exceeding 1 week from faculty facilities or services;

(iii) campus service for a period not exceeding 50 hours, with no employment relationship established or implied;

(iv) if the decision-maker is the Academic Registrar, suspension for a period not exceeding 2 weeks from the University or part of it; or

(c) level 3 general misconduct – a decision-maker may impose one or more of the following penalties for level 3 general misconduct –

(i) any level 1 or 2 penalty;

(ii) if the decision-maker is the Disciplinary Board –

(A)    suspension of up to 5 years from the University or part of it; or

(B)    expulsion from the University.

8.10 Compensation

In addition to any penalty imposed under section 8.9, a decision-maker may order a student to pay compensation up to a value of $500.

8.11 Factors in determining relevant penalty

Relevant factors for the decision-maker, in his or her discretion, in determining an appropriate penalty for misconduct include –

(a) the nature and extent of misconduct;

(b) the length of tertiary experience;

(c) the student’s disciplinary record;

(d) whether the decision-maker believes the student did not intend to commit the misconduct;

(e) in the case of plagiarism, whether the student should be deemed to have intended to engage in academic misconduct because –

(i) the student was provided with a detailed and specific definition of what constitutes plagiarism in respect of his or her course or particular piece of work; and

(ii) the student signed a declaration in respect of the relevant piece of work that they read and understood the information on plagiarism, and the penalties that may be imposed where an academic offence is committed; and

(iii) the student’s act of plagiarism is clearly covered by the information on plagiarism which the student received;

(f) the nature and relative weighting of an assessment;

(g) whether there is evidence of a deliberate and premeditated decision to engage in misconduct;

(h) the impact of the conduct on other people; or

(i) whether there are any mitigating circumstances provided that failure to complete the compulsory academic integrity online tutorial is not considered a mitigating circumstance.

8.12 Cancellation of enrolment and expulsion

8.12.1 A body empowered to cancel enrolment or expel a student may direct that the cancellation of enrolment or expulsion be set aside or deferred upon the conditions that the body decides.

8.12.2 A person who is expelled from the University must not be re-enrolled except by permission of the Vice-Chancellor, whose permission will not be given within the first 5 years.

8.13 Notice of decision

8.13.1 As soon as practicable after the decision-maker makes a decision, the decision-maker must –

(a) give the student a written notice of the decision; and

(b) inform the student of any appeal rights and timeframes; and

(c) if the decision-maker is not the Academic Registrar—give a copy of the notice to the Academic Registrar.

8.13.2 The notice must state –

(a) the decision;

(b) the misconduct level;

(c) the reasons for the decision;

(d) the student’s right to appeal and applicable timeframes; and

(e) that the outcome of the appeal may be:

  • no change to original decision,
  • reduced severity and or level of penalty, or
  • increased severity and or level of penalty.

 

9. Appeals

9.1 Appeals

9.1.1 A student may appeal a decision of a decision-maker as to –

(a) whether the student has committed misconduct; or

(b) the penalty imposed by the decision-maker.

9.1.2 To appeal a decision the student must lodge an appeal application with the Academic Registrar within 20 business days of being given notice of the decision.

9.1.3 An appeal application must clearly state:

(a) the decision being appealed and the grounds for appeal; and

(b) grounds of appeal which must include one or more of the following:

(i)  since the decision was made substantive new information that supports their case has become available;

(ii)   the process for making the decision was procedurally incorrect or unfair;

(iii)  the penalty imposed by the decision-maker was disproportionate to the level of alleged misconduct.

(c) that a student must attach all relevant supporting appeal documentation at the time of lodging the appeal application.

(d) that when making an appeal the student must note that the relevant appeal person or appeal body may apply penalties relevant to the assessed level of misconduct as advised in the appeal hearing notification.

9.1.4 The Academic Registrar may extend the time for compliance with section 9.1.2.

9.1.5 Despite section 5(d) of this policy, the Academic Registrar may request further information from a student in relation to their appeal application prior to giving notice to the relevant appeal person or the chairperson of the relevant appeal body.

9.1.6 The Academic Registrar must give a minimum of 5 business days written notice of hearing date of appeal to the relevant appeal person or the chairperson of the relevant appeal body.

9.1.7 The relevant appeal person or body must hear the appeal within 20 business days from the date the student gives notice of the appeal, unless the student and the Academic Registrar agree on a longer period.

9.1.8 An appeal will be heard by the relevant appeal person or body by way of ‘new hearing’ and consider all disciplinary material at first instance. A ‘new hearing’ under this policy means an appeal de novo.

9.2 Who hears an appeal arising from academic misconduct

9.2.1 An appeal arising from level 1 cases of academic misconduct will be heard and decided by the Executive Dean and proceeds by way of a new hearing under the procedures set out in section 8.5.

9.2.2 An appeal arising from level 2 cases of academic misconduct will be heard and decided by the Disciplinary Board and proceeds by way of a new hearing under the procedures set out in section 8.5.

9.2.3 An appeal arising from level 3 cases of academic misconduct will be heard and decided by the Senate Discipline Appeals Committee and proceeds by way of a new hearing under the procedures set out in section 9.4.

9.3 Who hears an appeal arising from general misconduct

9.3.1 An appeal arising from level 1 cases of general misconduct will be heard and decided by the Disciplinary Board and proceeds by way of a new hearing under the procedures set out in section 8.5.

9.3.2 An appeal arising from level 2 cases of general misconduct will be heard and decided by the Disciplinary Board and proceeds by way of a new hearing under the procedures set out in section 8.5.

9.3.3 An appeal arising from level 3 cases of general misconduct will be heard and decided by –

(a) the Disciplinary Board and proceeds by way of a new hearing under the procedures set out in section 8.5; or

(b) if the Disciplinary Board heard the initial case, the Senate Discipline Appeals Committee and proceeds by way of a new hearing under the procedures set out in section 9.4.

9.4 Procedures of Senate Discipline Appeals Committee

9.4.1 In dealing with an appeal, the Senate Discipline Appeals Committee must give the student an appeal hearing notice at least 5 business days before the date of the hearing of the time and place of the hearing;

9.4.2 The appeal hearing notice must provide:

(i)  a description of the alleged student misconduct;

(ii)  the circumstances in which the alleged misconduct occurred;

(iii) the penalty as stated by the original decision-maker;

(iv) the grounds of appeal made by the student;

(v)  the date, time and location of the hearing;

(vi) a statement inviting the student to attend the hearing and advising that the student may be accompanied by a support person who is legally qualified; and

(vii) a statement that the hearing may proceed in the student’s absence if the student does not attend the appeal hearing.

9.4.3 After receiving an appeal hearing notice, a student may request from the Secretary of the Senate Discipline Appeals Committee, a copy of all documentation containing substantive material on which the allegation was based.

9.4.4 The Secretary of the Senate Discipline Appeals Committee must respond to a request under 9.4.3 and provide the student with a copy of the documentation or access to view the documentation as soon as practicable.

9.4.5 The University and the student are entitled to legal representation.

9.4.6 The student must advise the Secretary of the Senate Discipline Appeals Committee at least three (3) business days prior to the notified appeal hearing date of the name, qualifications and contact details of their legally qualified representative.

9.4.7 The committee must determine an appeal on the basis of evidence adduced by the University and the student.

9.4.8 In all matters other than those above, when dealing with an appeal, the Senate Discipline Appeals Committee must proceed in the way the chairperson decides.

 

9.5 Notice of decision

9.5.1 As soon as practicable after the appeal body makes a decision, the appeal body must –

(a) give the student a written notice of the decision; and

(b) give a copy of the notice to the Academic Registrar.

9.5.2 The notice must state –

(a) the decision;

(b) the reasons for the decision; and

(c) right to appeal to the Queensland Ombudsman's Office.

 

10. Composition of Disciplinary Board and Senate Discipline Appeals Committee

10.1 Disciplinary Board

10.1.1 The University must have a Disciplinary Board.

10.1.2 The Disciplinary Board comprises –

(a) a chairperson, who is a senior member of academic staff appointed by the Vice-Chancellor; and

(b) two members of the academic staff, appointed by the Vice-Chancellor; and

(c) two students, who are students at the time of appointment, appointed by the Vice-Chancellor after consulting the President of the University of Queensland Union for a term of 1 year.

10.1.3 The Academic Registrar may appoint a person to act as secretary to the Board.

10.1.4 The chairperson of the Disciplinary Board has a deliberative vote and a casting vote.

10.1.5 A quorum of the Board is three.

10.1.6 The Vice-Chancellor may appoint a member of the Board, including a replacement member, to act as chairperson during the absence of the chairperson.

10.2 Senate Discipline Appeals Committee

10.2.1 The University must have a Senate Discipline Appeals Committee.

10.2.2 The Senate Discipline Appeals Committee comprises –

(a) two Senators who are not academic staff of the University, appointed by Senate for a term of three years, one of whom is appointed as chairperson; and

(b) one academic board member appointed by the Chancellor, after consulting the President of the Academic Board, for a term of three years; and

(c) two persons who are students at the time of appointment, appointed by the Chancellor, after consulting the President of the University of Queensland Union, for a term of one year.

10.2.3 The Chief Operating Officer may appoint a person to act as secretary to the committee.

10.2.4 The chairperson has a deliberative vote and a casting vote.

10.2.5 A quorum of the committee is four.

10.2.6 If, in a particular case, a member of the committee is absent or declines to sit, or the Chancellor considers it appropriate that the member not sit, the Chancellor may nominate a person to sit in the member’s place for the purposes of dealing with that case.

10.2.7 The Chancellor may appoint a member of the committee, including a replacement member, to act as chairperson during the absence of the chairperson.

10.2.8 If a member leaves the committee during his or her term, the Chancellor may appoint a suitably-qualified person to fill the casual vacancy for the remainder of the term.

11. Undischarged Penalties

11.1 Undischarged penalties

11.1.1 If a penalty imposed on a student under this policy remains outstanding the decision-maker may issue a notice requiring the student to appear before that decision-maker to review the original penalty or penalties imposed on the student.

11.1.2 The notice must include –

(a) a description of the penalty or penalties that remains outstanding; and

(b) the date, time and location of the hearing; and

(c) a statement inviting the student to attend the hearing and advising that the student may be accompanied by a person who is not legally qualified; and

(d) a statement that the hearing may proceed in the student’s absence if the student does not attend the hearing.

11.1.3 The hearing must proceed in accordance with the procedures in section 8.5.

11.1.4 After considering any evidence presented by the student, the decision-maker must review the appropriate penalty or penalties and may, in his or her discretion, impose any penalty or penalties available to the decision-maker according to the level of misconduct.

11.1.5 As soon as practicable after the decision-maker makes a decision, the decision-maker must –

(a) give the student a written notice of the decision, including reasons for the decision; and

(b) if the decision-maker is not the Academic Registrar – give a copy of the notice to the Academic Registrar.

11.1.6 Despite section 11.1.4, the University may, during the period in which any penalty imposed on a student remains outstanding –

(a) refuse to release to the student the result for any assessment item completed by the student; or

(b) refuse to grant to the student credit for the completion of any course at the University; or

(c) refuse to confer on the student an award for which the student is eligible.

11.1.7 A student may apply to the Academic Registrar for the release of results, or the grant of credit or the conferral of an award, in exceptional circumstances.

12. Forfeiture of Fees

12.1 Forfeiture of fees for cancellation of enrolment or expulsion

12.1.1 No fees paid by a student relating to a period where the student’s enrolment is cancelled under this policy are refundable or repayable to the student.

12.1.2 No fees paid by a student are refundable or repayable to the student where the student is suspended or expelled from the University under this policy.

13. Emergency Power to Suspend Student

13.1 Interim suspension

13.1.1 The Vice-Chancellor may in his or her discretion make an interim suspension order if the Vice-Chancellor is satisfied on reasonable grounds that there is a substantial risk that a student will—

(a) injure a person, or damage property, on the University’s land; or

(b) cause serious disruption of a University activity.

13.1.2 An interim suspension order takes effect immediately.

13.1.3 As soon as possible after the Vice-Chancellor makes the order, the Vice-Chancellor must –

(a) give the student written notice of the order; and

(b) refer the matter to the Academic Registrar under section 7.6 of this policy.

13.1.4 The notice must include—

(a) the details of the order; and

(b) a statement of the reasons for the decision; and

(c) a statement informing the student when the order will end.

13.1.5 An interim suspension order continues to operate until –

(a) it is revoked by the Vice-Chancellor; or

(b) a decision is made on the allegation of general misconduct under section 8.13; or

(c) it expires in accordance with the terms of the order.

13.1.6 To avoid doubt, if the Vice-Chancellor makes an interim suspension order under section 13.1.1 for a specified period (the suspension period), during the suspension period, the student must not enter the University’s land and must cease all activities as a student of the University.

14. Miscellaneous Provisions

14.1 Withholding results

If a student has been given any allegation notice the University may withhold the student’s academic results until the proceedings (including an appeal) are finalised.

14.2 Extension of time limits

14.2.1 Before a time period expires under sections 7.6.2, 8.3.1, 8.4 and 9.1.7, a decision-maker may apply in writing to the Academic Registrar for an extension of the relevant time period.

14.2.2 The Academic Registrar may extend any time limit prescribed in this policy if satisfied –

(a) that the decision-maker has made a reasonable attempt to consult the student about an extension of the time limit; and

(b) the student’s ability to address the allegations is not impaired.

14.3 Records

14.3.1 The Academic Registrar must keep a record of –

(a) all findings of misconduct made under this policy; and

(b) all penalties imposed in respect of a finding of misconduct.

14.3.2 The records referred to in section 14.3.1 form part of the student’s disciplinary record.

 

14.4 Giving of notices to students

14.4.1 If this policy requires a notice to be given to a student, the notice must be given to the student by –

(a) delivering it to the student personally; or

(b) posting it by registered or express post to –

(i)     if during a semester – the student’s postal address stated in the University’s electronic student administration system; or

(ii)    if sending it another time – the student’s permanent address stated in the University’s electronic student administration system; or

(c) sending it by email to the student’s allocated University email account.

14.4.2 A notice is deemed to have been received –

(a) if sent by registered or express post to an address within Australia, on the third business day after it was sent; or

(b) if sent by registered or express post to an address outside Australia, on the seventh business day after it was sent; or

(c) if sent by email, 24 hours after the time it was sent.

Custodians
Academic Registrar
Mr Mark Erickson

Guidelines

Student Integrity and Misconduct - Guidelines

Printer-friendly version
Body

1. Purpose and Objectives

These guidelines supplement PPL 3.60.04a Student Integrity and Misconduct - Policy and provide practical advice to those involved in the University’s integrity and misconduct processes.

2. Definitions, Terms, Acronyms

No entries for this document.

3. Guidelines Scope/Coverage

These guidelines apply to all staff and students.

4. Guidelines Statement

These guidelines seek to achieve an effective student integrity and misconduct management system by providing clear guidelines to students and staff involved in the misconduct processes.

5. Guidelines for Staff

5.1 Staff responsibilities

Course Coordinators must:

a. be familiar with the content of the academic integrity tutorial (online module) and ensure that advice is consistent with the tutorial;
b. inform all students of appropriate referencing techniques and provide clear examples of what is acceptable;
c. clearly explain academic expectations and what constitutes plagiarism to students in the electronic course profile;
d. set realistic assessment loads and vary assignments and assessment tasks from semester to semester, and design assignments and assessment tasks that encourage original thinking;
e. set appropriate conditions for group work and make clear the distinction between group work and individual work.

5.2 Requirement to act fairly, impartially and exercise independent judgment

Staff who investigate or decide allegations or appeals must act fairly and impartially. While they may seek advice about the process or their responsibilities under the policy, they must exercise independent judgment about the particular allegation or appeal, based on their objective assessment of the evidence.

5.3 Confidentiality

Staff who investigate or hear allegations or appeals must treat them as confidential and must not discuss them with anyone not involved in the process. Any disclosure of information to others involved in the process should be on a strictly “need-to-know” basis, depending on the nature of their role in the process.

5.4 Conflicts of interest

Staff involved in misconduct or appeals processes should disclose actual, perceived or potential conflicts of interest (whether personal, financial or otherwise) as soon as they become aware of them. The staff member’s supervisor (or other person to whom they are accountable under the process) must assess whether the potential conflict is or is likely to (or be seen to) preclude that staff member from acting fairly and impartially. If so, then another person must be appointed to replace the staff member. Staff who have previously advised or supported a student should not normally be involved in any investigation or decision-making in relation to that student’s complaint or appeal. If in doubt, take the cautious approach, and discuss the situation with the integrity officer or the Academic Registrar.

5.5 Preliminary investigation

In conducting a preliminary investigation the integrity officer (if alleged misconduct is academic) or Academic Registrar (if alleged misconduct is general) must be consulted. This is to assist in determining how the investigation will be conducted and what information should be collected as part of the process. Issues to be addressed include:

  • whether the student should attend a preliminary meeting
  • whether the student’s written response to the concerns be sought in the first instance
  • whether IT investigations would be useful in determining the allegation
  • whether others should be approached to provide statements.

At this stage, a recidivist check must be sought from the Student Complaints and Grievance Resolution Unit to determine whether the student has previously been subject to allegations of misconduct. A history of poor academic practice or lapses in general conduct may suggest the current allegation should be considered by a decision-maker with greater authority under the Student Integrity and Misconduct policy.

Once the relevant information has been collected, a report on the findings needs to be developed for consideration by the integrity officer or the Academic Registrar. The investigation report should include:

  • an impartial summary of the evidence collected
  • copies of the information collected (including meeting minutes if relevant)
  • on the balance of the evidence collected, a recommendation on whether there is sufficient prima facie evidence to warrant further consideration
  • whether the investigation has uncovered any other concerns that should be considered.

Once the integrity officer or Academic Registrar has the report, their role is to consider what, if any further, action should be taken.

The process checklist will further assist in completing the preliminary investigation steps.

5.6 Allegation notices

This is the first formal notification to a student that they will be subject to formal misconduct proceedings. As such there are a number of features that must be present in an allegation notice.

5.6.1 Description of the alleged misconduct

A description of the alleged student misconduct and the circumstances in which the alleged misconduct occurred must be included in the allegation notice. It is useful when framing the allegation to reflect language, where applicable, used in the policy under sections 6.1 and 6.2.

5.6.2 Date, time and location of the hearing

In setting the date and time of the hearing, consideration should be given to:

  • The policy time limits - i.e. a decision-maker must decide a case of alleged misconduct within 20 business days from the date that the allegation notice was issued.
  • If the time limit will not be met, then as soon as reasonably practicable, the student and Academic Registrar must be approached to seek their agreement to extend the timeframe.
  • Whether the hearing will be taking place during an examinations period. Scheduling a hearing close to a student’s examination should be avoided and instead should be held well in advance of, or following, examinations.
  • The time of the hearing should avoid any clashes with the student’s academic timetable.

5.6.3 Attendance

The allegation notice should include:

  • A statement inviting the student to attend the hearing with a person other than a legally qualified person if they wish.
  • A statement that the hearing may proceed in the student’s absence if the student does not attend the hearing.

5.6.4 Additional information

The receipt of an allegation notice and the process that ensues can be an anxious time for a student. Generally, the more information on the process the student has, the better placed they are to manage this anxiety. In acknowledging this, it is useful to include additional information in the notice including:

  • Reference to the policy and these guidelines.
  • Advice that the student can request a copy of all substantive material on which an allegation is based.
  • Advice that they may provide written statements in the event they cannot attend the hearing.

It is also advisable that decision-makers encourage students to seek assistance from the Student Union or Student Services.

5.7 Hearings

Hearings should follow an inquisitorial model where the decision-maker clarifies points of fact and provides the student with an opportunity to be heard before making a decision on the allegation.

The student integrity and misconduct policy should be referred to in relation to the need to operate in accordance with the requirements of procedural fairness.

5.7.1 Hearing agenda

While there is discretion for a decision-maker to conduct a hearing in any manner they see fit, a hearing will usually proceed as follows:

a. The student, and support person if applicable, is welcomed into the hearing by the decision-maker and introduced to the secretary and other Board members if relevant.

b. The decision-maker states the allegation under consideration and provides the student with an opportunity to inspect all substantive material evidence available (if the student has not already been provided with copies).

c. The decision-maker asks for the student’s plea or, if previously indicated, whether they would like to change the plea.

d. The student is provided with an opportunity to make verbal submissions and to provide any additional information for the decision-maker’s consideration.

e. The decision-maker seeks to clarify any outstanding questions from the material provided.

f. Witnesses are invited to appear. The witnesses and student should not interact with each other directly, but direct questions instead through the decision-maker. The student and his or her support person must be allowed to remain in the room while the witnesses give statements.

g. Any additional points of clarification are made and the student is provided further opportunity to submit any comments before the decision-maker deliberates the case.

h. The student is given the opportunity to wait in another room for the decision-maker to make a decision.

i. The decision-maker invites the student and his or her support person to re-join the hearing and asks whether there are any issues about the proceedings they would like recorded.

j. The decision is delivered and any penalties imposed before the decision-maker calls the hearing to an end.

k. Should the decision maker determine that matters raised at the hearing warrant further investigation prior to making a decision, the hearing may be adjourned to facilitate that investigation, and subsequently re-convened at a later time.

l. An adjourned hearing must be reconvened as soon as practicable and preferably not later than 10 working days after the original adjournment.

5.7.2 Role of decision-maker in hearing

The decision-maker is responsible for:

  • the general conduct of the hearing and for upholding order throughout the proceedings
  • leading the discussions and ensuring that the student has sufficient opportunity to submit evidence, including verbal submissions
  • considering all the material and independently determining a decision based on findings of facts established on sound reasoning and relevant evidence.

5.7.3 Role of secretary in hearing

The role of the secretary in a hearing is to keep minutes of the discussions that take place. It is not expected that notes are verbatim but that the substantive discussion is captured sufficiently. While it may be appropriate for the secretary to provide advice to the decision-maker on matters of process and policy, it is not the role of the secretary to have involvement in the decision of an allegation.

5.7.4 Role of support person to student in hearing

The role of the support person is to provide support to the student throughout the hearing process.

In some circumstances, a student may request the support person represent them at a hearing by speaking on their behalf. This is not prohibited by policy and should be accepted particularly in situations, where the student believes their ability to adequately represent themselves is impaired in some way. It is important that the decision-maker checks that the representative is not legally qualified.

5.7.5 Role of witness

The role of the witness is to provide evidence as requested by the decision-maker. Witnesses may include course coordinators, other academic staff members or administrative staff, fellow students and librarians. The witness does not have a role in suggesting outcomes of the hearing and should be judicious in providing opinion.

5.7.6 Other persons

In order to ensure an independent decision is made, the only people to be present for the full hearing and during deliberations are the decision-maker and secretary.

5.8 Decision and penalties

5.8.1 Decision

A decision made about an allegation of misconduct should be based on findings of facts that are established on sound reasoning and relevant evidence.

In forming a decision, the Queensland Ombudsman encourages decision-makers to:

  • determine the weight to be given to competing factors in a decision and to be clear about which factors more weight is placed on and why.
  • clearly identify the critical issues in the decision (that is, the issues on which a decision turns). This can be done by considering what issues would need to change for the opposite decision to be made. It is important that sufficient evidence exists to establish each of these issues.
  • ensure that if a previous decision is to be followed, the circumstances are sufficiently similar to those of the decision under current consideration.

It is important that as part of the decision-making process, the decision-maker articulates the reasons for making a particular decision.

5.8.2 Penalty

Where a student is found guilty of misconduct, the decision-maker should consult sections 8.8-8.11 of PPL 3.60.04a Student Integrity and Misconduct - Policy. In particular, section 8.11 provides a number of relevant features to consider in determining penalty. The collective consideration of these features should assist in achieving a proportionate and appropriate penalty.

6. Guidelines for Students

6.1 Student responsibilities

Students must ensure that they:

(a) are familiar and compliant with the expectations and responsibilities prescribed under the student charter, including but not limited to:

1. treating other members of the University community equitably and with respect and courtesy;

2. avoiding conduct which might reasonably be perceived as discrimination, harassment or bullying or which is otherwise intimidating;

3. respecting University property and the facilities, such as library, computing and laboratory resources

(b) submit only work that is their own or that properly acknowledges the ideas, interpretations, words or creative works of others;

(c) avoid lending original work to others for any reason;

(d) comply with assessment conditions for policies and procedures, rules and regulations;

(e) be clear about what is appropriate referencing and the consequences of inappropriate referencing in their discipline;

(f) do not collude with people, including fellow students, when completing assessment work;

(g) complete the academic integrity online tutorial within the first semester of study at the University prior to the census date.

6.2 Responding to an allegation

When an allegation of misconduct is received, it is advisable a number of steps are taken in responding to the allegation and engaging in the process for deciding the matter.

  • The Student Union has experience advising students on the misconduct processes and acting in an advocacy role. Student Services have experience supporting students who are anxious or distressed about the process, and it may be helpful to contact either group as a first step.
  • If a student would like a copy of the information relevant to the allegation, contact the appropriate person to make a request (their contact details will be on the allegation notice).
  • Students are provided with an opportunity to attend a hearing and they should seek to confirm attendance early.
  • If, for extenuating reasons, a student cannot attend the hearing but would like to, the appropriate person should be contacted to request a different time/date.
  • If a student cannot attend the hearing, they should consider whether they would like a representative (not legally qualified), to represent them in their absence. If so, they need to arrange this and advise the appropriate university contact.
  • If the student prefers, they may provide written statements and/or evidence to the decision-maker before the hearing.
  • A hearing generally follows an inquisitorial model where a decision-maker provides the student with an opportunity to comment on the allegations and clarify any questions before making a decision on the matter.

6.3 Appealing a decision or penalty

If the student is unhappy with the decision on an allegation of misconduct about them, there are avenues for appeal described under section 9 of PPL 3.60.04a Student Integrity and Misconduct - Policy.

It is important if the student intends to appeal a decision or penalty, that they lodge an application with the Academic Registrar within 20 business days of being given notice of the decision.

In lodging an appeal the student should describe on what grounds they are appealing the decision or penalty i.e. whether:

a. since the decision they have received substantive new information that supports their case
b. the process for making the decision was procedurally incorrect or unfair
c. the penalty imposed by the decision-maker was disproportionate to the level of alleged offending.

7. Other Resources

This guideline must be read in conjunction with PPL 3.60.04a Student Integrity and Misconduct - Policy.

Resources for University staff:

Custodians
Academic Registrar
Mr Mark Erickson
Custodians
Academic Registrar
Mr Mark Erickson