UOW Policy Documents

Policy Documents at a Glance

Writing & Reviewing Policy

PROCEDURE FOR MANAGING ALLEGED ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT BY A STUDENT UNDERTAKING COURSEWORK

Student Conduct Rules


Date approved	17 August 2007	Date Procedure will take effect:	1 January 2008	Date of Next Review:	January 2011
Approved by:	University Council
Custodian title & e-mail address:	Senior Manager, Policy and Governance Unit governance@uow.edu.au
Responsible Division	Policy and Governance Unit, Academic Registrar’s Division
Supporting documents, procedures & forms of this procedure:	Procedure Flowchart Investigation and Outcome Notice Templates Referral of Misconduct Investigation Template
References & Legislation:	General Retention and Disposal Authority GDA23 Records Management Policy State Records Act 1998 Student Conduct Rules Code of Practice - Research
Audience:	Public – accessible to anyone
Expiry date:	2011

Contents

1 Introduction and Purpose 3
2 Scope of Procedure 3
3 Definitions 3
4 Roles & Responsibilities 3
5 Academic Misconduct by a Student Undertaking Coursework 4
6 Urgency Provisions 8
7 Procedure for Managing Alleged Academic Misconduct by a Student Undertaking Coursework 9
8 Investigation Committee Procedures 17
9 Extension of time limits 20
10 Record Keeping 20
11 Flowchart and Templates 21
12 Version Control and Change History 21
Schedule 1 - Application of Procedure for the Managing Alleged Academic Misconduct by a UOW student undertaking study through Wollongong College Australia 22

1 Introduction and Purpose

1. This procedure supports and should be read in conjunction with the Student Conduct Rules. In accordance with the Rules, this procedure must be followed when managing alleged academic misconduct by a student undertaking coursework.
2. The purpose of this procedure is to direct UOW staff and students on the process to be followed when managing alleged academic misconduct by a student undertaking coursework.

2 Scope of Procedure

1. This procedure applies to the management of alleged academic misconduct by a student of UOW undertaking coursework (as defined in section 3 of the Student Conduct Rules), under the circumstances defined in section 4 of the Student Conduct Rules.
2. This procedure includes management of alleged misconduct relating to research-based assessment tasks by Honours or Masters-by-Coursework students. When managing such misconduct, consideration may be given to the process and outcomes related to managing research misconduct by a Higher Degree Research student, as outlined in the Code of Practice-Research.
3. This procedure includes management of alleged academic misconduct by a Higher Degree Research student undertaking coursework.

3 Definitions

Word/Term	Definition
assessor	An academic staff member responsible for evaluating and allocating a mark for an assessment item.
Central Register	A register and file of student misconduct investigations, controlled and maintained by the Academic Registrar’s Division.
conflict of interest	A conflict between a person's private interests and University obligations
Local Register	A register and file of student misconduct investigations, controlled and maintained by the Faculty.
due process	Procedural rights under this procedure, including the application of the principles of natural justice
SOLSMail	Student Online Services email system

All other definitions relating to Student Conduct are detailed in Section 3 of the Student Conduct Rules.

4 Roles & Responsibilities

1. Roles and responsibilities are detailed in Section 5 of the Student Conduct Rules.

5 Academic Misconduct by a Student Undertaking Coursework

Poor Academic Practice

1. In some cases where an allegation of academic misconduct by a student undertaking coursework is brought to the attention of the Subject Coordinator, it may be determined that the conduct of the student represents poor academic practice or scholarship rather than academic misconduct.
2. In such cases, the Subject Coordinator may determine that while academic misconduct has not occurred, an informal response to the student’s conduct is required, to educate the student on correct academic practice. Actions that can be taken under an informal response are:

a. warning
b. referral to Learning Development
c. resubmission of the assessment item without penalty
d. provision of additional material to support the assessment item
e. minor mark penalty (noting that where a student disputes the mark penalty, this will be dealt with as an appeal under this procedure in accordance with clause 7.28).

3. The Subject Coordinator may take action under an informal response as outlined in 5.2 at his/her discretion. A record of the interaction shall be kept by the Subject Coordinator.

Academic Misconduct

4. Types and examples of academic misconduct by a student undertaking coursework are shown in Table 5.1.


Table 5.1 - Academic Misconduct by a Student Undertaking Coursework		Level of Response
Cheating Behaving deceitfully or dishonestly (in examinations and in-class tests)	Bringing unauthorised equipment or material into an examination	Low-Level, Medium-Level or High-Level
	Using unauthorised equipment or material in an examination (calculators etc)	Medium-Level or High-Level
	Copying another student’s work	Medium-Level or High-Level
	Accessing confidential examination information prior to examination	Medium-Level or High-Level
Fabrication Intentional and unauthorised falsification or invention of any information or citation in an academic exercise Examples (illustrative and not exhaustive): Making up sources for a bibliography Making up footnotes Claiming results of research where none have been obtained Changing results of research		Medium-Level or High-Level
Facilitating academic dishonesty Intentionally or knowingly helping or attempting to help another student engage in some form of academic dishonesty		Low-Level, Medium-Level or High-Level
Fraud Deceitful behaviour by which it is sought to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage Examples (illustrative and not exhaustive): Giving a false excuse for missing a test or deadline Falsely claiming inventorship		Medium-Level or High-Level
Misleading ascription of authorship Example (illustrative and not exhaustive): Claiming credit for a proportion of work contributed to a group assessment item that is greater than that actually contributed		Low-Level, Medium-Level or High-Level
Misrepresentation Representing data or information incorrectly, improperly, or falsely Examples (illustrative and not exhaustive): Stating or presenting a material or significant falsehood Omitting a fact so that what is stated or presented as a whole states or presents a material or falsehood		Medium-Level or High-Level
Obstruction / Interference Behaving in any way that limits the academic opportunities of other students by improperly impeding their work or their access to educational resources Examples (illustrative and not exhaustive): Borrowing all copies of a particular text from the Library so others do not have access to it Inventing a bomb scare or other security risk Taking or materially damaging any study-related property of another		Medium-Level or High-Level
Plagiarism Using another person's ideas, designs, words or works without appropriate acknowledgement. Examples (illustrative and not exhaustive): Failure to acknowledge sources of quotations, ideas or data (including when paraphrasing) Copying another students’ work (with or without consent) Collusion (presenting an assessment item as independent work when it has been produced in part or in whole in collusion with other people)		Low-Level, Medium-Level or High-Level
Re-using one’s own work Example (illustrative and not exhaustive): Re-using, without acknowledgement, one’s own work that has been previously submitted and counted towards another assessment item.		Medium-Level or High-Level
Using unauthorised equipment or material in an assessment item		Medium-Level or High-Level
Using another person to undertake an examination or assessment item		High-Level

5. The process for managing alleged academic misconduct by a student undertaking coursework is outlined in full in Section 7.

Responses to Academic Misconduct by a Student Undertaking Coursework

6. Academic misconduct by a student undertaking coursework may be managed by a Low-Level Response, Medium-Level Response or High-Level Response. The only possible outcomes of each level of response and the persons authorised to implement these outcomes are shown in Table 5.2.


Table 5.2 – Responses to Academic Misconduct
Level of Response	Outcome	Authorised Persons
Low-Level Response	Any informal outcome (as listed at clause 5.2); Submission of an alternative assessment task; Resubmission of assessment task with a mark penalty; Deduction of marks for assessment task; or Zero mark in assessment task, providing that this will not automatically result in failure of the subject.	Primary Investigation Officer
Medium-Level Response	Any informal outcome (as listed at clause 5.2); Any Low-Level outcome; or Zero mark or reduced mark in subject	Faculty Investigation Committee
High-Level Response	Any informal outcome (as listed at clause 5.2); Any Low-Level outcome; Any Medium-Level outcome; and/or any of the following: Reprimand from the Vice-Chancellor; Immediate Suspension by the Vice-Chancellor (with or without also suspending any scholarship the student may hold); Deferred Suspension by the Vice-Chancellor subject to one or more conditions (e.g. good behaviour, demonstrated consultation with a registered professional, academic performance); Exclusion from the University by the Vice-Chancellor; Expulsion from the University by the Vice-Chancellor; Withhold official certification (eg academic transcript, degree testamur) for up to three months; or Rescission of degree by the University Council	Student Conduct Committee (in some cases in consultation with the Vice-Chancellor)

Considerations when Determining an Appropriate Response and Outcome

7. The following considerations may be taken into account when determining an appropriate response and outcome to academic misconduct by a student undertaking coursework:

a. Whether the misconduct is considered important or of consequence to the assessment item in which it has occurred, also taking into account the nature of the misconduct and the context in which it is found
b. The extent of the misconduct in an assessment item
c. The proportion of the overall course mark represented by the assessment item
d. The nature of the course and the assessment item
e. The degree to which the misconduct affects any underlying thesis on which the assessment item is based
f. The conventions associated with the particular academic discipline
g. The year or study level of the student
h. The language proficiency of the student
i. Any relevant individual circumstances of the student
j. Whether the student has previously been found in breach of academic conduct and is the subject of an entry on the Central Register
k. Any apparent intention to deceive by a student, and, if any
l. The level and effect of that intention.

6 Urgency Provisions

1. Where alleged academic misconduct by a student undertaking coursework:

a. is the subject of investigation by the police or other civil authorities
b. may bring the University and its staff and students into disrepute
c. involves extreme harassment or vilification which breaches the University’s Principles, Statement of Values, Rules, codes and/or policies
d. threatens the welfare or study of other students or staff, or
e. is otherwise considered to be serious enough to warrant immediate action,

a recommendation may be made to the Vice-Chancellor that the following action be taken, pending the outcome of the investigation:

i. temporary block of the student’s IT access
ii. limitation of the student’s right of access to the University
iii. termination of the student’s right of access to the University, or
iv. immediate suspension of the student from the University.

2. The following officers may, after preliminary review, make a recommendation as detailed in clause 6.1:

a. Subject Coordinator
b. Primary Investigation Officer
c. Chair of a Faculty Investigation Committee
d. Chair of the Student Conduct Committee

3. Upon receiving a recommendation under clause 6.1 the Vice-Chancellor or standing nominee of the Vice-Chancellor may either:

a. accept the recommendation, impose a temporary block of IT access, limitation or termination of right of access, or immediate suspension, and, where appropriate, direct the officer that made the recommendation to refer the matter to the Student Conduct Committee as soon as possible and within a maximum of ten working days, or
b. not accept the recommendation for immediate suspension, limitation or termination of access, or temporary block of IT access, and refer the matter back to the officer that made the recommendation for further investigation in accordance with the normal procedure.

4. Where action is imposed under clause 6.3, the officer that recommended the action to the Vice-Chancellor or standing nominee of the Vice-Chancellor shall:

a. ensure that the student is served with a written notice of the temporary block of IT access, limitation or termination of right of access, or suspension, as a matter of urgency
b. refer the matter to the Student Conduct Committee for the service of an Investigation Notice, and
c. notify the Academic Registrar in writing, for advice to relevant officers.

7 Procedure for Managing Alleged Academic Misconduct by a Student Undertaking Coursework

1. Staff members responsible for managing alleged academic misconduct by a student undertaking coursework shall follow the process set out in this procedure and the Management of Alleged Academic Misconduct by a Student Undertaking Coursework Flowchart.
2. This procedure provides a staged investigation and appeal process for dealing with all allegations of academic misconduct by a student undertaking coursework:

Stage 1: Initial determination by Subject Coordinator

Stage 2: Conclusion of investigation by Subject Coordinator and Primary Investigation Officer (PIO)

Stage 3: Investigation by Faculty Investigation Committee

Stage 4: Investigation by Student Conduct Committee

Stage 5: Consideration of an Appeal by Council Committee of Appeal (Student Discipline)

Primary Investigation Officers

3. Within each faculty, the Head of Academic Unit and a standing nominee, or a maximum of two standing nominees appointed by the Head of Academic Unit, hold the position of Primary Investigation Officer (PIO) for the purpose of managing alleged academic misconduct by a student undertaking coursework. Where a faculty is not comprised of separate Academic Units, the Faculty shall appoint two Primary Investigation Officers and may appoint more with the written approval of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Operations).
4. Primary Investigation Officers are permitted to seek advice from other Primary Investigation Officers during the investigation of alleged academic misconduct by a student undertaking coursework.
5. The Academic Registrar’s Division (ARD) shall maintain a record of all Primary Investigation Officers.

Stage 1 - Initial determination by Subject Coordinator

6. A staff member must bring an allegation of academic misconduct by a student undertaking coursework to the attention of the Subject Coordinator as soon as possible once it has been identified. A student may bring an allegation of academic misconduct by a student undertaking coursework to the attention of the Subject Coordinator. The staff member or student shall provide the Subject Coordinator with relevant information and evidence relating to the allegation. In the case of alleged academic misconduct during a University Examination, the officer in charge of the conduct of the examination may discuss the matter with the student in order to assist in providing relevant supporting information to the Subject Coordinator in relation to the allegation. If necessary, the Subject Coordinator may collect further evidence relating to the allegation.
7. The Subject Coordinator has the option to consult with a PIO at any stage outlined in 7.8 to 7.15.
8. The Subject Coordinator shall determine whether there is sufficient evidence that academic misconduct may have occurred.
9. If there is not sufficient evidence that academic misconduct may have occurred, the allegation shall be dismissed and no further action shall be taken.
10. If there is sufficient evidence that academic misconduct may have occurred, the allegation shall be investigated by the Subject Coordinator.
11. The Subject Coordinator shall discuss the allegation with the student and shall seek a student response to the allegation. If, after all reasonable efforts have been made to contact and discuss the allegation with the student, the Subject Coordinator has not been able to do so; they may proceed with the investigation without discussion with the student.
12. Based on the evidence collected, and the discussion with the student where this has taken place, the Subject Coordinator shall determine whether academic misconduct has occurred. The Subject Coordinator must make this determination as soon as possible and within a maximum of ten working days of having received the allegation.
13. The student should continue their normal academic work within that subject while the investigation is taking place, as failure to do so would disadvantage the student.

Allegation Dismissed

14. If the Subject Coordinator determines that academic misconduct has not occurred, the allegation shall be dismissed.
15. The Subject Coordinator shall advise the student that the allegation has been dismissed.
16. As per clause 5.1, in some cases the Subject Coordinator may determine that the alleged misconduct represents poor academic practice or scholarship rather than academic misconduct, and may impose an informal response and outcome.

Allegation Upheld

17. If the Subject Coordinator determines that academic misconduct has occurred, the allegation shall be upheld.
18. The Subject Coordinator shall notify a PIO of the case. Where the Subject Coordinator has sought preliminary advice from the PIO (as stipulated in clause 7.7), the Subject Coordinator will notify a different PIO within the Faculty at this stage.
19. The PIO shall create a record of the case on the Local Register. The Local Register records all cases within the Faculty where academic misconduct has been found to have occurred, for the purpose of risk management and auditing.

Appropriate Response and Outcome Determined

20. The PIO shall request ARD to check the Central Register to determine whether an entry exists for the student for any previous academic misconduct offence.
21. The Subject Coordinator and PIO shall determine the appropriate level of response and outcome, in accordance with clause 5.6. In determining the appropriate level of response and outcome, the Subject Coordinator and PIO may give consideration to the factors listed at clause 5.7.
22. If the Subject Coordinator and PIO determine that a low-level response is appropriate, they shall continue with management of the case in accordance with Stage 2 - Conclusion of Investigation by Subject Coordinator & Primary Investigation Officer.
23. If the Subject Coordinator and PIO determine that a medium-level response is appropriate, the PIO shall refer the case to the Faculty Investigation Committee in accordance with Stage 3 – Investigation by Faculty Investigation Committee.
24. If the Subject Coordinator and PIO determine that a high-level response is appropriate, the PIO shall refer the case to the Student Conduct Committee, in accordance with Stage 4 – Investigation by Student Conduct Committee.
25. When referring a matter to the Faculty Investigation Committee or the Student Conduct Committee, the PIO must:

a. use the Referral of Misconduct Investigation Template to record full details of the case, including:

i. a detailed explanation of the allegation
ii. evidence supporting the allegation
iii. result of discussion or interview with the student
iv. the student’s conduct history
v. the recommended outcome
vi. supporting materials

b. update the record of the case on the Local Register
c. advise ARD to create a record of the case on the Central Register, and
d. advise the student of the referral using the appropriate notice letter template.

26. A determination and response by the Subject Coordinator and PIO shall be made as soon as possible and within a maximum of ten working days of having determined that academic misconduct has occurred.

Stage 2 - Conclusion of Investigation by Subject Coordinator & Primary Investigation Officer

Low Level Response

27. The Subject Coordinator and PIO shall determine the appropriate low-level outcome to be applied in accordance with clauses 5.6 and 5.7.
28. The PIO shall:

a. impose the outcome
b. update the record of the case on the Local Register
c. advise the student of the outcome using the appropriate notice letter template, and
d. advise the assessor and other relevant staff of the outcome, as necessary.

Appeal against Decision of Subject Coordinator & Primary Investigation Officer

29. A student may appeal against a decision of the Subject Coordinator and PIO, only if the appeal is based on lack of natural justice or due process, or if there is new evidence that has not previously been considered.
30. An appeal by a student against a decision of the Subject Coordinator and PIO must:

a. be lodged in writing with the Associate Dean, Sub-Dean, or equivalent appointed by the Dean, of the Faculty within a maximum of ten working days of notification of the outcome of the Subject Coordinator and PIO’s investigation
b. state fully the reasons for the appeal, and
c. include any relevant documentary evidence to support the appeal.

31. The Associate Dean, Sub-Dean, or equivalent appointed by the Dean, shall consider the case put forward and evidence provided by the student to support the appeal.
32. The Associate Dean, Sub-Dean, or equivalent appointed by the Dean, shall determine whether there are sufficient grounds for the appeal as soon as possible and within a maximum of ten working days of having received the appeal.

Appeal Dismissed

33. If the Associate Dean, Sub-Dean, or equivalent appointed by the Dean, determines that there are not sufficient grounds for the appeal, then the decision of the PIO stands. The Sub-Dean shall:

a. advise ARD to create a record of the case and appeal on the Central Register, and
b. advise the student and PIO of the outcome using the appropriate notice letter template for the student.

34. The student has no further opportunity to appeal the decision within the University.

Appeal Upheld

35. If the Associate Dean, Sub-Dean, or equivalent appointed by the Dean, determines that there are sufficient grounds for the appeal, then the case is referred to the Faculty Investigation Committee for consideration. The Associate Dean, Sub-Dean, or equivalent appointed by the Dean shall:

a. refer the matter to the Faculty Investigation Committee using the Referral of Misconduct Investigation Template
b. advise ARD to create a record of the case, appeal and referral on the Central Register, and
c. advise the student of the referral using the appropriate notice letter template.

Stage 3 - Investigation by Faculty Investigation Committee

36. The Faculty Investigation Committee shall consider cases referred to it by:

a. the PIO
b. the Sub-Dean as a result of appeal by the student against a decision of the PIO, or
c. the Academic Register for reconsideration as a result of appeal by the student as per clause 7.54.

37. The Faculty Investigation Committee shall comprise:

a. the Dean (or the Dean's nominee) as Chair, and
b. two members of academic staff (appointed by the Chair) who are not involved with the teaching or assessment of the subject concerned. For a particular case the Dean may choose to nominate a student in the place of one of the academic staff members.

38. A general staff member appointed by the Dean shall act as Secretary to the Committee. The Secretary, who is not a member of the committee, shall assist the Committee in whatever way the Chair of the Committee directs.
39. The Faculty Investigation Committee shall meet to consider the evidence of the case and interview the student and any other persons relevant to the case. The Committee shall conduct the meeting in accordance with Section 8. Investigation Committee Procedures.
40. Based on the evidence considered and the interview with the student, the Faculty Investigation Committee shall determine whether academic misconduct has occurred.

Allegation Dismissed

41. If the Faculty Investigation Committee determines that academic misconduct has not occurred, the allegation shall be dismissed.
42. The Faculty Investigation Committee must:

a. advise ARD to update the record of the case on the Central Register, and
b. advise the student and PIO of the outcome using the appropriate notice letter template for advice to the student.

Allegation Upheld

43. If the Faculty Investigation Committee determines that academic misconduct has occurred, the allegation shall be upheld.
44. The Faculty Investigation Committee shall then determine the appropriate level of response and outcome, in accordance with clause 5.6. When determining the appropriate level of response and outcome, consideration may be given to the factors listed in clause 5.7.
45. If the Faculty Investigation Committee determines that a Low-Level or Medium-Level response and outcome is appropriate, it shall:

a. impose an outcome
b. advise ARD to update the case and outcome on the Central Register accordingly, and
c. advise the student and PIO of the outcome using the appropriate notice letter template for advice to the student.

46. If the Faculty Investigation Committee determines that a High-Level response and outcome is appropriate, it shall refer the matter to the Student Conduct Committee.
47. When referring a matter to the Student Conduct Committee, the Faculty Investigation Committee shall:

a. use the Referral of Misconduct Investigation Template
b. advise ARD to update the case and outcome on the Central Register accordingly, and
c. advise the student of the referral using the appropriate notice letter template.

Appeal against Decision of Faculty Investigation Committee

48. A student may appeal against a decision of the Faculty Investigation Committee, only if the appeal is based on lack of natural justice or due process, or if there is new evidence that has not previously been considered.
49. An appeal by a student against a decision of the Faculty Investigation Committee must:

a. be lodged, in writing, with the Academic Registrar within a maximum of ten working days of notification of the outcome of the investigation
b. state fully the reasons for the appeal, and
c. include any relevant documentary evidence to support the appeal.

50. The Academic Registrar shall consider the case put forward and evidence provided by the student to support the appeal.
51. The Academic Registrar shall determine whether there are sufficient grounds for the appeal as soon as possible and within a maximum of ten working days of having received the appeal.

Appeal Dismissed

52. If the Academic Registrar determines that there are not sufficient grounds for the appeal, then the decision of the Faculty Investigation Committee stands. The Academic Registrar shall:

a. advise ARD to update the case and outcome on the Central Register accordingly, and
b. advise the student of the outcome using the appropriate notice letter template.

53. The student has no further opportunity to appeal the decision within the University.

Appeal Upheld

54. If the Academic Registrar determines that there are sufficient grounds for the appeal, then the case is referred to either the Faculty Investigation Committee for re-consideration or the Student Conduct Committee for consideration. The Academic Registrar shall:

a. refer the matter back to the Faculty Investigation Committee for reconsideration; or refer the matter to the Student Conduct Committee using the Referral of Misconduct Investigation Template
b. advise ARD to record the appeal and referral on the Central Register accordingly, and
c. advise the student of the referral using the appropriate notice letter template.

Stage 4 - Investigation by Student Conduct Committee

55. The Student Conduct Committee shall consider cases referred to it by:

a. the PIO
b. the Faculty Investigation Committee
c. the Academic Registrar based on appeal by the student against the decision of the Faculty Investigation Committee
d. the Vice-Principal (Administration) for reconsideration as a result of appeal by the student as per clause 7.69
e. the Council Committee of Appeal (Student Discipline) for a new hearing or reconsideration as a result of a student appeal as per clause 7.79.

56. The Student Conduct Committee shall comprise:

a. Chair of Academic Senate or nominee, as Chair
b. a senior UOW staff member appointed by the Chair
c. a student appointed by either:

i. the President of the Wollongong Undergraduate Student Association (for undergraduate cases)
ii. the President of the Wollongong University Postgraduate Association (for postgraduate cases), or
iii. the Vice-Chancellor, if it is not possible or appropriate for an appointment to be made under i, or ii.

57. A Secretary to the Committee shall be appointed by the Academic Registrar. The Secretary, who is not a member of the committee, shall assist the Committee in whatever way the Chair of the Committee directs.
58. The Student Conduct Committee shall meet to consider the evidence of the case and interview the student and any other persons relevant to the case. The committee shall conduct the interview in accordance with Section 8. Investigation & Appeal Committee Procedures.
59. Based on the evidence considered and the interview with the student, the Student Conduct Committee shall determine whether academic misconduct has occurred.

Allegation Dismissed

60. If the Student Conduct Committee determines that academic misconduct has not occurred, the allegation shall be dismissed.
61. The Student Conduct Committee shall:

a. advise ARD to update the record of the case on the Central Register, and
b. advise the student and PIO of the outcome using the appropriate notice letter template for advice to the student.

Allegation Upheld

62. If the Student Conduct Committee determines that academic misconduct has occurred, the allegation shall be upheld.
63. The Student Conduct Committee shall then determine the appropriate level of response and outcome, in accordance with clause 5.6. When determining the appropriate level of response and outcome, consideration may be given to the factors listed in clause 5.7. The Student Conduct Committee shall:

a. impose an outcome
b. advise ARD to record the case and outcome on the Central Register, and
c. advise the student and PIO of the outcome using the appropriate notice letter template for advice to the student.

Appeal against Decision of the Student Conduct Committee

64. A student may appeal against a decision of the Student Conduct Committee, only if the appeal is based on lack of natural justice or due process, or if there is new evidence that has not previously been considered.
65. An appeal by a student against a decision of the Student Conduct Committee must:

a. be lodged, in writing, with the Vice-Principal (Administration) within a maximum of twenty working days of notification of the outcome of the investigation
b. state fully the reasons for the appeal, and
c. include any relevant documentary evidence to support the appeal.

66. The Vice-Principal (Administration) shall consider the case put forward and evidence provided by the student to support the appeal.
67. The Vice-Principal (Administration) shall determine whether there are sufficient grounds for the appeal, as soon as possible and within a maximum of ten working days of having received the appeal.

Appeal Dismissed

68. If the Vice-Principal (Administration) determines that there are not sufficient grounds for the appeal, then the decision of the Student Conduct Committee stands. The Vice-Principal (Administration) shall:

a. advise ARD to document the appeal and outcome on the Central Register, and
b. advise the student and PIO of the outcome using the appropriate notice letter template for the student.

69. The student has no further opportunity to appeal the decision within the University.

Appeal Upheld

70. If the Vice-Principal (Administration) determines that there are sufficient grounds for the appeal, then the case is referred to either the Student Conduct Committee for re-consideration or the Council Committee of Appeal (Student Discipline) for consideration. The Vice-Principal (Administration) shall:

a. refer the matter back to the Student Conduct Committee for reconsideration; or refer the matter to the Council Committee of Appeal (Student Discipline) using the Referral of Misconduct Investigation Template
b. advise ARD to document the appeal and referral on the Central Register, and
c. advise the student of the referral using the appropriate notice letter template.

Stage 5 - Consideration of an Appeal by University Council Committee of Appeal (Student Discipline)

71. The Council Committee of Appeal (Student Discipline) shall consider cases referred to it by the Vice-Principal (Administration) as a result of appeal by the student.
72. The Committee of Appeal (Student Discipline) shall comprise:

a. the Deputy Chancellor or, if unavailable, another member of Council appointed by the Chancellor (as Chair)
b. the student member of Council or, if unavailable, another student appointed by Council, and
c. one other member of Council appointed by Council

73. A Secretary to the Committee of Appeal (Student Discipline) shall be appointed by the Vice-Principal (Administration). The Secretary, who is not a member of the committee, shall assist the Committee in whatever way the Chair of the Committee directs.
74. The Council Committee of Appeal (Student Discipline) shall meet to consider the evidence of the case and interview the student and any other persons relevant to the case. The Committee shall conduct the interview in accordance with Section 8. Investigation & Appeal Committee Procedures.
75. The Council Committee of Appeal (Student Discipline) shall determine whether the appeal is warranted and shall be upheld.
76. If the Council Committee of Appeal (Student Discipline) determines that the appeal is not warranted, the decision of the Student Conduct Committee shall be upheld.
77. The Council Committee of Appeal (Student Discipline) shall:

a. advise ARD to update the record of the case on the Central Register accordingly, and
b. advise the student and PIO of the outcome using the appropriate notice letter template for advice to the student.

78. The student shall have no further opportunity to appeal the decision within the University.
79. If the Council Committee of Appeal (Student Discipline) determines that the appeal is warranted the matter shall be referred back to the Student Conduct Committee for re-consideration.
80. The Council Committee of Appeal (Student Discipline) shall:

a. advise ARD to update the record of the case, appeal and referral on the Central Register accordingly, and
b. advise the student of the referral using the appropriate notice letter template.

Termination of Investigation Proceedings

81. Any student misconduct investigation proceedings, including appeal proceedings, may be suspended by the Vice-Principal (Administration) if the student ceases to be enrolled at the University.
82. If student misconduct investigation proceedings are suspended under rule 7.81, the Vice-Principal (Administration) shall advise the student that:

a. they have no automatic right to return to the University, and
b. if they apply for re-enrolment, they shall not be re-enrolled until the student conduct investigation proceedings are completed.

83. The Vice-Principal (Administration) shall ensure that the record of the investigation on the Central Register is updated accordingly.

8 Investigation Committee Procedures

1. The procedures set out below must be followed by any Investigation Committee when conducting an investigation of alleged academic misconduct by a student undertaking coursework.
2. Investigation Committees authorised to investigate cases of alleged academic misconduct by a student undertaking coursework are:

a. Faculty Investigation Committee
b. Student Conduct Committee
c. Council Committee of Appeal (Student Discipline)

Membership of Investigation Committees

3. Both genders must be represented on a committee.
4. A person may not sit on a committee investigating an allegation of misconduct where that person has previously been involved with the allegation or there is, otherwise, a potential conflict of interest.
5. A member of a committee who, during an investigation or appeal, ceases to hold the office by virtue of which they are a member of that committee, may remain a member of the committee until the investigation has been completed.
6. If during the currency of an investigation or appeal a member of a committee becomes unable (through illness or any other cause) to act for a period that would unduly delay the completion of the investigation, the committee may complete its investigation or appeal in their absence as long as at least two other members are still able to act.

Referrals to Investigation Committees

7. Matters shall be referred to an Investigation Committee, Student Conduct Committee or Council Committee of Appeal (Student Discipline) using the Referral of Misconduct Investigation Template. Referrals must include full details of the case, including:

a. a detailed explanation of the allegation
b. evidence supporting the allegation
c. result of discussion or interview with the student
d. the student’s conduct history
e. the recommended outcome
f. supporting materials

Service of an Investigation Notice

8. Where a matter has been referred to a Faculty Investigation Committee or the Student Conduct Committee, the Secretary of that committee must serve the student with a written Investigation Notice as soon as possible and within a maximum of ten working days of the referral.
9. An Investigation Notice served under clause 8.8 must include:

a. details of the allegation
b. reference to any rule, policy or code allegedly breached
c. advice on withholding assessment results (where relevant)
d. an invitation to attend an interview at a given date, time and location
e. the option for the student to be assisted by a support person of their choice at the interview
f. attached copies of any documentation being considered (subject to any requirement to maintain the privacy or safety of another person) and any relevant rule, policy or code
g. an invitation to the student to provide a written statement of how they wish to answer the allegation and any supporting evidence, including counselling reports in advance of the investigation interview, and
h. advice that, if the student chooses not to attend, the matter shall be determined in their absence.

10. A notice may be served on a student under this procedure either:

a. personally within the University or elsewhere (e.g. at their residence), or
b. by SOLSMail and post addressed to the student’s last known place of residence.

11. If a notice is served by way of SOLSMail and post, it shall be deemed to have been served on the student on the date on which it would have been delivered in the ordinary course of the post.
12. A copy of the notice served on a student under clause 8.8 must be provided to the Academic Registrar, for advice to other relevant officers of the University.

Investigation Committee Meetings

13. The committee meeting should be held as soon as possible and within a maximum of twenty working days of the date of service of the Investigation Notice, unless the Chair of the committee grants an extension to the student or more time is required to collect necessary evidence.
14. If a student wishes to submit documentation listed below in a, b or c. to the Committee, it must be provided at least two working days before the committee meeting:

a. a written statement of how they intend to respond to the allegations
b. other written material pertinent to their case
c. the names of any witness(es) and/or any person supporting the student during the meeting in accordance with clause 8.16(f).

15. Any other supporting documentation including professional report(s), statement(s) of extenuating circumstances, or character reference(s), may be provided at the committee meeting

Conduct of investigation

16. Where a student who has been given due notice chooses not to attend a committee meeting, the committee may investigate the matter or hear an appeal in the student's absence.
17. In conducting an investigation or appeal meeting, a committee shall:

a. give the student an opportunity to be heard
b. where an allegation of misconduct is being investigated by a Faculty Investigation Committee or the Student Conduct Committee, explain the allegation to the student and give the student the opportunity to respond to the allegation
c. with the permission of the student, make an audio recording of the interview between the Committee and the student and attach to the Committee file
d. give the Primary Investigation Officer bringing the complaint and/or any other staff member or student involved in the event(s) leading up to the complaint an opportunity to be heard;
e. permit the student to be assisted by a support person
f. at the discretion of the Chair, permit any person appearing before the committee to be assisted by a support person
g. permit any support person attending the meeting to provide advice to the student and to address the committee in a summary statement only; the support person is not permitted to interview witnesses or to address the committee directly during interviews
h. permit the student to nominate witnesses to appear to support their defence against the complaint
i. permit any person appearing before the Committee in accordance with (d) above to nominate witnesses to appear to support their evidence
j. disallow questions which it considers to be unseemly or irrelevant for the nature of its investigation
k. caution all persons appearing before the committee that they are expected to conduct themselves in a reasonable and responsible manner during the proceedings and that any form of behaviour which is an impediment to the proceedings shall of itself be regarded as a breach of the Rules
l. where there is reasonable concern by the committee or any witness or participant in the proceedings that an individual's safety may be compromised by contact with the student who is the subject of the allegation (e.g. where the student is subject to an Apprehended Violence Order), be entitled to allow the evidence to be presented without the student being present
m. where the conduct of any person interferes with any other person’s right to be heard, be entitled to remove that person from the meeting and to hear their evidence separately
n. in cases where the committee finds that the complaint is proven, give the student the opportunity to be heard on the issue of penalty
o. hold all its proceedings in private, and
p. keep an adequate record of the committee meeting proceedings.

18. Decisions of a committee are made by majority.
19. Where multiple investigations of alleged academic misconduct by a particular student undertaking coursework are taking place concurrently, the determination of an appropriate outcome for the latter investigation/s may be deferred until the determination of an outcome for the former investigation has been made.
20. A comprehensive file of all relevant documentation, including records of the committee proceedings, evidence presented and the committee’s decision shall be created, maintained and retained by ARD in accordance with clause 10 of this procedure.

Outcome of Investigation

21. As soon as practicable after a meeting of a Faculty Investigation Committee or Student Conduct Committee, and within a maximum of ten working days, the Chair of the Faculty Investigation Committee (or nominee), or the Student Conduct Committee (or nominee), must serve the student with written notice of the outcome of the investigation using the appropriate notice letter template.
22. Where the outcome includes a reprimand from the Vice-Chancellor, the notice shall be signed by the Vice-Chancellor (or nominee).
23. As soon as practicable after a meeting of the University Council Committee of Appeal and within a maximum of ten working days, the Secretary of the Committee must serve the student with written notice of the outcome of the appeal using the appropriate notice letter template.
24. A copy of the outcome notice served on a student under clause 8.20 or 8.22 must be provided to the Academic Registrar, for advice to other relevant officers of the University.
25. At the conclusion of all investigations, ARD shall update and close the record of the case on the Central Register accordingly.

9 Extension of time limits

1. Any time limit set in this procedure may be extended at the discretion of the PIO or Chair of the committee, for example, to provide adequate time to gather evidence and convene a meeting or because of special circumstances demonstrated by the student.

10 Record Keeping

1. All files relating to investigations of student misconduct shall be retained and disposed of in accordance with the University’s Records Management Policy, the State Records Act 1998, and the General Retention and Disposal Authority GDA23.
2. Cases of academic misconduct by a student undertaking coursework resulting in a low-level outcome shall be recorded on the Local Register by the Primary Investigation Officer. Each faculty is responsible for creating and maintaining a Local Register.
3. Cases of academic misconduct by a student undertaking coursework resulting in a medium-level or high-level outcomes shall be recorded and filed centrally by the Academic Registrar’s Division. The Academic Registrar’s Division is responsible for developing and maintaining the Central Register.

11 Flowchart and Templates

1. Procedure Flowchart
2. Investigation and Outcome Notice Templates:

12 Version Control and Change History

Version Control	Date Effective	Approved By	Change Details
1	1 January 2008	University Council	Procedure for Managing Alleged Academic Misconduct by a Student Undertaking Coursework accompanies Student Conduct Rules and replaces Rules for Student Conduct and Discipline.
2	20 May 2008	Vice-Principal (Administration)	Minor amendment to clause 7.6 to accommodate alleged academic misconduct during a University Examination.
3	5 February 2009	Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic)	Migrated to UOW Procedure Template as per Policy Directory Refresh

Schedule 1 - Application of Procedure for the Managing Alleged Academic Misconduct by a UOW student undertaking study through Wollongong College Australia

Application

1. The conduct of UOW students who are undertaking study through Wollongong College Australia (WCA) is governed by the Student Conduct Rules and associated procedures, as defined in section 4 of the Student Conduct Rules.

Procedure for management of alleged misconduct by a UOW student undertaking study through WCA

2. The following modified features apply to management of alleged academic misconduct by a UOW student who is undertaking study through WCA. Where otherwise not stipulated, the Procedure for Managing Alleged Academic Misconduct by a Student Undertaking Coursework applies without modification.

Authorised Officers for management of alleged misconduct by a UOW student undertaking study through WCA

3. For the purposes of management of alleged academic misconduct by a UOW student who is undertaking study through WAC, the following officers or committees are considered to have equivalent authority and responsibility to the UOW officers or committees referred to in Sections 5 – 8 of the Procedure for Managing Alleged Academic Misconduct by a Student Undertaking Coursework:

UOW Officer	WCA Officer
Subject Coordinator	Program Coordinator
Sub-Dean	Student Advisor
Primary Investigation Officer	Campus Director
Faculty Investigation Committee	Academic Misconduct Panel: Director of WCA (Chair) Two teaching staff appointed by the Chair

Last reviewed: 23 June, 2009

Policy Directory Search

Ask for Help

Click here for information on how to contact the Policy and Governance Unit for advice and assistance on policy issues.