Policy Number: 3.60.1
Contact Officer: Academic Registrar
Date Approved by Senate: 22/11/2007
Date last approved: 22/11/2007
Date for Next Review: 22/11/2010
 

Overview

 1. Introduction

1.1 The University of Queensland Statute No. 4 (Student Discipline and Misconduct) 1999 ("the Statute") governs the principles and procedures for dealing with student misconduct.  Misconduct includes conduct that impairs others' pursuit of activities in the University, hinders the pursuit of academic excellence (e.g. through cheating) or improper use of University facilities. The Statute includes the procedures for investigating and assessing suspected cases of misconduct, the jurisdiction and penalty powers of decision-makers, and the consequent penalties for misconduct.

1.2 The following statement is designed to aid understanding of procedures contained in the Statute and to document matters of policy arising out of the administration of the Statute.

1.3 Unless otherwise stated, a reference in this document to a section or schedule is a reference to a section or schedule in Statute 4.

2. Detecting and reporting misconduct

3. Role of decision-maker

4. Proceeding to decide an allegation

5. Procedures to be followed by all decision-makers

6. Penalties

7. Appeals

8. Contact Officer

Appendices

Appendix 1        Flow Charts for Discipline and Misconduct Cases

Example 1 Academic Misconduct

Example 2 Non-Academic Misconduct

 Appendix 2

Allegation Notice – Case Involving Academic Misconduct  Decided by Head of School or Executive Dean

Allegation Notice – Case involving Academic Misconduct Decided by the Disciplinary Board

Indication of Plea (for cases heard by the Disciplinary Board)

Indication of Plea (for cases decided by the Disciplinary Board)

 Appendix 3

Disciplinary Hearing – Transcript of Proceedings

 Appendix 4

Decision Letter – Academic Misconduct – Student found guilty of one or more of the allegations and given a penalty

Decision Letter – Non-Academic Misconduct – Student found guilty of one or more of the allegations and given a penalty

The relevant sections of the Statute are listed beside the corresponding procedure.

Description

2. Detecting and reporting misconduct

2.1  Who may report misconduct? (section 6)

As misconduct may occur in both academic and non-academic contexts, misconduct may be detected and reported by any member of the University community.  Misconduct is defined in schedule 2 of Statute 4.

2.2  Procedure for reporting misconduct (section 6)

Once misconduct is suspected, it may be reported to one of the following decision-makers:

• Heads of Schools;
• Executive Deans;
• University Librarian;
• Director, Information Technology Services;
• Academic Registrar;
• President Academic Board; or 
• Disciplinary Board.

Alternatively, advice may be sought from the Academic Registrar.

2.3  Identifying the appropriate decision-maker

2.3.1  When deciding to whom suspected misconduct should be referred, consider the section 10 powers of the various decision-makers. The more serious the matter, the more senior the decision-maker. The following considerations are relevant:

 (a) whether the student has previously been found guilty of misconduct; and

 (b) the number of student/s affected by or involved in the suspected misconduct; and

 (c) the effect of the suspected misconduct on other person/s ; and

 (d) the extent of any damage to property resulting from the suspected misconduct; and

 (e) the benefit derived  by the student/s from the suspected misconduct; and 

 (f)  in the case of suspected academic misconduct, the weighting the assessment or examination may carry towards the overall marks for a  course; and

 (g) in the case of suspected cheating in an examination:  

 (i) evidence of use or opportunity to use unauthorised material  before its discovery (statements from the examiner and the supervisor will be relevant); and

 (ii) the amount and/or relevance of examinable information contained in unauthorised material; and

 (h) in the case of suspected plagiarism:

 (i) the amount of plagiarised material noting that where:

• < 10% of the work submitted – minor
• < 50% of the work submitted – significant/major
• < 75% of the work submitted – blatant; and

(ii) whether the suspected plagiarism may have been committed intentionally to gain an advantage, or out of ignorance of the proprieties of scholarly acknowledgement, in which case the year of enrolment of the student may be relevant (e.g. first year undergraduate should not equate to first year postgraduate – see HUPP 3.40.12 Academic Integrity and Plagiarism as a guide).

2.3.2  The flow charts in the appendices provide examples of the decision-making process. If doubt exists regarding the appropriate decision-maker, the matter should be referred to the Academic Registrar.

3. Role of decision-maker

3.1 Seriousness of misconduct

The factors set out in 2.3 are also relevant here.

3.2  Personal Involvement

3.2.1  It is essential that a decision-maker who has a conflict of interest such as a personal involvement or connection with either the student involved or the matters to be heard should refer the matter to another decision-maker.

3.2.2  A member of the Disciplinary Board should advise the Board’s secretary of a potential conflict of interest on receiving the relevant papers, to allow appropriate steps to be taken. 

4. Proceeding to decide an allegation

4.1  Time limits (section 8)

A decision-maker must comply with the time limits in section 8. The decision-maker must send the allegation notice to the student within 28 days of the evidence of suspected misconduct coming to their attention. A decision-maker must decide the case within 28 days of the allegation notice. The Statute does permit the Vice-Chancellor to waive compliance with a time limit. This power will be exercised with care.

4.2  Preliminary investigations

A decision-maker may undertake preliminary investigations to decide whether to proceed against a student for suspected misconduct. At this stage the decision-maker should also consider the seriousness of the allegations and the available evidence. (see 3.1)

The decision-maker should also check whether the student has previously been found guilty of misconduct by contacting the Secretary, Disciplinary Board. (see 8.)

4.3  Withholding results during investigations (section 25)

At the preliminary investigation stage, the decision-maker must consider whether to withhold a student's results until the investigation is finalised. The decision-maker should request that the Manager, Examinations Section, place the appropriate notation (RW) on the student's  academic  record, and ensure that a result for that student in the course under investigation is not released. This is particularly important in the case of a student who may otherwise be ready to graduate before the case is finalised.

4.4  Referring the matter to another decision-maker before allegation notice is given (section 12)

4.4.1 Even during the preliminary investigation, the decision-maker may conclude that the suspected misconduct should be referred to a decision-maker at a different level, for example:

·         because there is a conflict of interest;

·         because the decision-maker uncovers a greater level of suspected misconduct than first reported which, if established, could warrant a penalty greater than that able to be imposed by the original decision-maker;

·         because the suspected misconduct was initially referred to a higher decision-maker and it is considered sufficient for the matter to be dealt with at a lower level;

·         because the student has committed misconduct previously.

4.4.2 When referring a matter, the initial decision-maker should pass all evidence and documents to the new decision-maker. The 28 day time limit in section 8 recommences on the day the new decision-maker receives the documentation.

4.5  Interim suspension (section 27)

Subject to section 27, the Vice-Chancellor may suspend a student pending investigation of suspected misconduct. This would only be necessary in rare cases where the student’s continuing presence on site could potentially lead to further misconduct.

4.6  Allegation notice (section 7)

If the decision-maker considers that there is sufficient prima facie evidence to indicate that misconduct has occurred, a written notice detailing the alleged misconduct (“allegation notice”) must be given to the student. Template allegation notices are found in the appendices.

The decision-maker may decide to continue investigation into the matter and collect evidence after an allegation notice has been issued.

4.7  Contents of allegation notice

4.7.1 The allegation notice must include:

(a) a clear statement of the allegation/s against the student; and

(b) details of the allegation, including the  course code (if applicable), a description of the  alleged misconduct and reference to any university rules breached; and

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

(d) an invitation to the student to attend the hearing, and advice that they may be accompanied by someone not legally qualified; and

(e) advice that the hearing may proceed in his or her absence,  if the student chooses not to attend; and

(f) if the allegation notice is by the Disciplinary Board, advice that the student may consent to the matter being dealt with by the Academic Registrar or President of the Academic Board, as the case may be, under extended powers outlined in section 11.

4.7.2 The decision-maker may also, along with the allegation notice, provide to the student an indication of plea notice. The indication of plea notice has several purposes:

     (a)     to enable the student to advise how they wish to plea to the allegation/s; and

     (b)     to indicate their attendance at the hearing; and

     (c)     in the case of a matter referred to the Disciplinary Board, whether they wish the case to be dealt with by the Academic Registrar or the President, Academic Board. (see 4.7.1 (f))

However, a student has the right to change their plea at any time before or during a hearing and, where an indication of plea notice is being sent, this advice should be included in the allegation notice. A student may also change their mind about whether they wish to attend the hearing. (see 5.1)

Examples of allegation notices are found in the appendices. Examples of indication of plea notices are also included in the appendices.

4.8  Giving an allegation notice (section 28)

The allegation notice must be given to the student by hand delivery, mail, facsimile transmission or email. Experience has shown that, if using mail, it is highly desirable to use registered mail coupled with Australia Post’s mail tracking facility so that receipt by the student can be verified. Use at least two methods of service, such as registered mail and email. When giving the allegation notice by mail, the envelope should always be marked ‘personal and confidential’. Notice by mail should take account of section 28 and SI-net practice. Therefore send to the mailing address as well as the semester address if different. Allow at least 2 days for delivery time (more if interstate or overseas) when calculating the 28 days time limit. If the allegation notice is sent towards the end of a semester or during a vacation period, the allegation notice should be mailed to all the student’s addresses listed on SI-net and clearly marked ‘personal and confidential’.

When telephoning students regarding misconduct matters, care should be taken not to breach the university’s student confidentiality and privacy policies, nor to divulge to persons other than the student that you are a university officer.

4.9  Referring the matter to another decision-maker (after allegation notice sent) (section 12)

A decision-maker may refer the matter to another decision-maker after giving the student the allegation notice. Under the Statute, a decision-maker may refer a matter to another decision-maker at any time before giving the student a written decision. If a matter is referred, the existing allegation notice may be satisfactory. However, if it is apparent that new allegations of misconduct should be considered, the new decision-maker should consider urgently the adequacy of the existing allegation notice, and if necessary, send a revised allegation notice to the student.

4.10  Recordkeeping

It is essential that a decision-maker maintains appropriate records at all stages in the process. A decision-maker must maintain full records of all actions, evidence (including exhibits), copies of the allegation notice, decision letter and hearing transcript. These materials must be provided to the Academic Registrar once the decision letter has been sent.

5.  Procedures to be followed by all decision-makers

5.1  Hearing and deciding alleged misconduct

5.1.1  A decision-maker must NOT attempt to decide an issue of misconduct UNLESS the student has first been given an allegation notice.

5.1.2  Before the hearing, the student is not required to advise the decision-maker whether the alleged misconduct is admitted or denied. Even if the student has indicated before the hearing that the alleged misconduct is admitted or denied, the student is entitled to change his or her response either before or during the hearing.

The student is entitled to rely solely on a written submission to the decision-maker to support the case. The student may elect not to attend the hearing. If the student or a representative does not appear within 30 minutes of the time scheduled to hear the case, the decision-maker may adjourn the hearing to satisfy themselves that reasonable attempts were made to notify the student. If the allegation notice has been sent to the student by registered mail, it may be possible to provide confirmed evidence that the notice, indicating the time and date of the hearing, has been received by the student.

Where a student fails to appear, and the decision maker is satisfied that the student has received the allegation notice and that all reasonable attempts have been made to contact the student, the decision-maker can decide to proceed without the student being present. However, a failure by the student to attend the hearing should not be treated as an admission of the alleged misconduct.

5.2  Presentation of evidence (section 7)

The student must be presented with all evidence held by the decision-maker, at the hearing at the latest, but preferably beforehand, to provide an opportunity for consideration and response at the hearing.

The student is entitled to submit evidence supporting his/her case and may be questioned by the decision-maker.

The student and/or their representative is entitled to be present during the presentation of any evidence by witnesses.

5.3  Questioning witnesses

The hearing conducted by the decision-maker is based on an inquisitorial model with the decision-maker investigating the alleged misconduct. In the course of the hearing, the decision-maker may call and question witnesses. The student may not directly question witnesses but may seek the decision-maker’s assistance in requesting a witness to address particular matters of concern to the student.

5.4  Referral to another decision-maker (section 12)

During the conduct of the hearing, the decision-maker may conclude that new evidence or statements by witnesses or the student warrant consideration of alleged misconduct by a more senior decision-maker. (see 4.9)

5.5  Decision-making

The decision-maker, including the Disciplinary Board, deliberates on the evidence without the student and/or their representative present. If the decision-maker’s deliberations indicate that more information is required, the student and/or their representative should be recalled to hear what is said. The student and/or their representative should wait nearby while these deliberations occur and should be called back to hear the decision, the reasons for the decision, and any penalty to be imposed. It is good practice for the decision-maker to ensure that any decision is reached and communicated verbally to the student before the closure of the hearing.

Under section 18(2) the decision-maker may institute an "implementation direction" which results in the immediate operation of the penalty, despite the lodgement of an appeal by the student. The power should be exercised sparingly, for example if the decision-maker believes that immediate implementation of a penalty is necessary to prevent further misconduct.

The decision-maker must consider matters such as those stated in section 18(4) before making an implementation direction.

5.6  Standard of proof

Should the student deny the allegation, the decision-maker must determine whether the evidence establishes that the misconduct occurred. In misconduct proceedings, the standard of proof is whether the decision-maker, after evaluating the evidence presented, is reasonably satisfied that the case against a student has been made.  Using this standard, it is sufficient if a fact is proved to the reasonable satisfaction of the decision-maker evaluating the evidence, and taking account of the serious nature of a finding of misconduct.

This standard lies between the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard of proof demanded by the courts in criminal cases and the “balance of probabilities” standard used in civil cases. A finding based on the “balance of probabilities" standard is unsafe and open to challenge.

5.7  Notification of penalty and right to appeal (section7(3))

As soon as possible after the hearing, the decision-maker must send to the student confirmation in writing of the decision, the reasons for it and what right of appeal the student has. At the same time, a copy of the decision letter, together with all other materials, must be forwarded to the Academic Registrar. (see 4.10)

The decision-maker must ensure that the Head of the relevant School and/or relevant Executive Dean are informed of the decision. This may be done conveniently by sending a copy of the decision letter. If a fine has been imposed, a copy of the decision letter must be sent to the Chief Financial Officer.

The decision letter must include the decision-maker’s finding regarding the allegation and, where a guilty finding has been made:

(a)     the penalty imposed; and

(b)     the implications that any penalties, such as suspension or expulsion, may have for a student’s enrolment in a course or program; and

(c)     if the penalty is a fine or restitution, instructions on how the student is to pay  the amount; and

(d)     time limits for appealing the decision; and

(e)     the procedure for lodging an appeal; and

(f)      advice details of the misconduct will be published on the university’s notice-board. 

Example of decision letters are found in the appendices.

6. Penalties

6.1  Appropriateness of the penalty (section 10)

The penalty imposed should be appropriate to the type and gravity of the misconduct. The jurisdiction of the decision-maker dictates the level of the penalty available. Care must be taken to ensure that the decision is made by someone with sufficient power. Academic penalties should only be imposed for misconduct that has occurred in an academic context. (section 9)

Where a counselling order is imposed, the decision-maker should consider the potential effectiveness of the order and impose only the number of hours sufficient to achieve the desired outcome. If necessary, the decision-maker should seek advice about the effectiveness of counselling before the hearing.

6.2  Fines (section 19)

Fine amounts are expressed as multiples of penalty units. At present, one penalty unit equals $75.

6.3  Campus service orders (section 22)

If a fine has been imposed under the Statute, a student may apply to the Academic Registrar to undertake campus service rather than pay the fine. In considering the application, the Academic Registrar must consider the suitability of the student to undertake campus service.

Under section 10, a campus service order may only be imposed by the Secretary and Registrar, President of the Academic Board or the Disciplinary Board.

7. Appeals

7.1  Who may appeal a decision? (section 14)

A student may appeal a decision. The University may not appeal a decision. 

7.2  Categories of appeal (section 15)

7.2.1  A student may appeal a decision of a Head of School, an Executive Dean, University Librarian, Director, Information Technology Services, President of the Academic Board, or the Academic Registrar. Such an appeal is heard by the Disciplinary Board and proceeds by way of a new hearing.

7.2.2  A student may appeal an original decision of the Disciplinary Board or an "extended powers" decision of the President of the Academic Board or Academic Registrar. Such an appeal is heard by the Discipline Appeals Committee and proceeds by way of a new hearing.

7.2.3  A student has the right of a further appeal, to the Discipline Appeals Committee, from an appeal decision of the Disciplinary Board if the Board imposes a penalty that would have been beyond the power of an Executive Dean (section 14 (2)).

7.3  Procedures and time limits for giving notice of appeal (section 14 (3))

7.4     Discipline Appeals Committee proceedings (section 16)

The requirements governing Discipline Appeals Committee proceedings are set out in section 16.   The student may be represented by counsel, or a solicitor, or by another person appointed by the student.  The University may be represented by counsel, a solicitor or a member of staff. During the hearing the student and the University may call and cross-examine witnesses, and address the Committee at the conclusion of evidence. The Chair is authorised to determine how the Committee will proceed.

8.  Contact Officer

8.1 The Manager, Academic programs is the Secretary, Disciplinary Board and may be contacted on ext 53140.  The Senior Manager, Academic Administration is the Secretary, Discipline Appeals Committee and may be contacted on ext 51975.