Management of processes and penalties for academic misconduct
Information for Schools
This information sheet outlines the three stage process for School management of cases of suspected academic misconduct.
‘Good Educational Practice’
Academic misconduct includes, but is not limited to, plagiarism and collusion. Under the University guidelines for ‘good educational practice’ lecturers and tutors are required to describe to students the actions that constitute academic misconduct and the strategies to avoid academic misconduct well in advance of assessment deadlines. Student education about academic misconduct is intended to prevent inadvertent cases.
Suspected Academic Misconduct
When a lecturer or examiner suspects academic misconduct, staff should consider whether the action was unintentional or deliberate and whether sufficient evidence is available to proceed with a formal discipline committee hearing.
1. Minor or Unintentional Academic Misconduct
- Examiner/lecturer informally consults with the Head of School to consider all factors influencing the possibility of academic misconduct.
- Examiner invites student to meet in a preliminary discussion.
- At the meeting focus on education and explain academic protocols and expectations.
(Do not allege academic misconduct unless sufficient evidence is available to proceed to a formal hearing.) (Refer to the Responding to Academic Misconduct page on the University's Academic Honesty and Plagiarism website.) - Meeting notes should name those present, the content of the discussion and the outcome.
- Notes should be signed off by the examiner and Head then forwarded to Faculty.
2. Delegation Process
In consultation with the Head of School, examiners/lecturers consider all factors, including:
- the extent of the misconduct;
- the student’s intention to commit academic misconduct; and
- whether enough evidence is available to proceed with a formal hearing.
If, after considering all factors, the Head of School decides to pursue the discipline process, the Head must refer the matter to the Dean who may delegate the formal process to the School, nominating the Head to act as Chair of the discipline committee. After written delegation has been received from the Dean, the School may convene the discipline committee.
3. Delegated Penalty Process
Process for convening the discipline committee:
- Within 14 days of the allegation being made, the Head of School must establish a committee. The discipline committee should comprise the Head of School (chair), one senior member of academic staff and an appropriate student representative.
- Within 14 days of the allegation being made, the Head of School must provide written notice to the student. (Refer to requirements of the ‘allegation notice’.)
- Student must be given the opportunity make a written submission within 10 days of receipt of notice or attend the hearing.
- The student must be formally notified of available services, including student advocacy and the right to be accompanied by a support person during the discipline committee hearing, and appeals mechanisms.
- The discipline committee is scheduled twenty-one days after the student receives the allegation notice (time limits may be extended after written communication between the chair and student).
The discipline committee may determine the best procedure to follow, must act fairly, and must dismiss or uphold each allegation of academic misconduct. If the allegation is upheld, the committee must, within three working days, impose the appropriate penalty. - Head of School informs the Dean of allegations and findings/penalties.
- Dean informs Academic Registrar. Findings/penalties are held on central and Faculty student files.
(Refer to the University Policy and Procedures for Academic Misconduct page on the University's Academic Honesty and Plagiarism website.)
These processes apply to undergraduate, postgraduate, local and international students