Academic misconduct

• Plagiarism - presenting someone else’s work or ideas as your own; 
• Self-plagiarism - submitting the same work that you have already submitted for another assessment when this is not permitted;
• Taking a copy of another student’s work without their permission; 
• Falsifying data, evidence or experimental results;
• Collusion - working with someone else on an assessment which is intended to be your own work;
• Contract cheating - where someone completes work for you who then submits it as their own (including use of essay mills or buying work online); 
• Arranging for someone else to impersonate you by sitting their examination; 
• Cheating in examinations (or other formal assessments), including possession of unauthorised material or technology during an examination, and attempting to access unseen assessment materials in advance of an examination; 
• Submitting fraudulent extenuating circumstances claims or falsifying evidence in support of extenuating circumstances claims (this may also be considered a non-academic disciplinary matter); 
• Breaches of research and ethics policies - e.g. carrying out research without appropriate permission.
• Improper use of generative AI

The University recognises that legitimate research on controversial, sensitive, or challenging topics forms an essential part of academic inquiry. The pursuit of knowledge may sometimes involve engaging with materials or viewpoints that some may find offensive or disturbing. Where such research is conducted with appropriate ethical approval, methodological rigour, and in accordance with scholarly norms, it will be protected from misconduct allegations based solely on its subject matter. 

Within 15 working days of receiving a report, the Head (or equivalent) or their nominated representative will conduct a preliminary assessment to: 

• Review the report and relevant assessment materials. 
• Determine if there is sufficient evidence to proceed. 
• Classify the potential misconduct. 

The possible outcomes at this stage are:

• No evidence of academic misconduct - no further action; 
• Potential Poor Academic Practice - refer to the PAP process; 
• Potential academic misconduct - refer to the formal investigation process 

Poor academic practice refers to minor breaches of academic integrity, often stemming from a lack of understanding of proper academic conventions or a failure to take adequate care to follow assessment guidelines. It typically involves unintentional misconduct like inadequate referencing or poor paraphrasing, rather than a deliberate attempt to deceive or gain an unfair advantage. 

If you are deemed to have committed Poor Academic Practice in relation to an assessment, you will be invited to a meeting with the Associate Head (Students), or equivalent, or their nominated representative, who will explain the nature of the concern. 

The purpose of the meeting will be to help you understand what you have done wrong and how to avoid a further occurrence. 

There are no sanctions during the PAP process. You will be signposted to relevant support and educational opportunities regarding good academic practice. You may be required to undertake an academic integrity learning activity. 

You will receive a summary of the meeting in writing. 

If the formal process is initiated, the next step is an investigation (which is usually completed within 30 working days). 

During this phase, an investigator with no previous involvement will gather evidence, including statements from you and any relevant witnesses. You will have an opportunity to share your perspective, and the investigation will be conducted fairly.  

The possible outcomes of the investigation include: 

• The student has not been considered to be in breach of the Policy and the matter will be closed; 
• The student has been considered to be in breach of the Policy and the matter can be resolved at this stage with the imposition of a minor or moderate sanction; 
• There is a case to answer for a breach of the Policy and a Panel should be convened to consider if a major sanction is appropriate.    

If either of the first two outcomes occur, there will be no further action after any sanctions are implemented. If a Panel is requested, the Student Casework team will convene a Panel (see below).

A Panel is required where there is evidence of a serious or repeated breach of the Policy such that a major sanction should be considered. The panel consists of independent University staff who will carefully review all the information from the investigation stage and then make a decision on the appropriate outcome, which may include:

• Suspension or exclusion from the university.  
• The removal of marks/credits already obtained.

The reported student is invited to attend the Panel meeting and explain their perspective. 

Following the Panel meeting, the University will issue a written outcome explaining the student’s right to appeal the decision.

You have the right to appeal the outcome of the case, within 10 working days of receiving the outcome.

The grounds for appeal are as follows:  

i. There has been a procedural irregularity in the conduct of the disciplinary process; 

ii. New material evidence is available which was not previously reasonably available; 

iii. The decision made was unreasonable and/or the sanction imposed was disproportionate to the disciplinary offence.

If your appeal doesn't fit these reasons, the University will likely treat it as a complaint instead. 

Submit an appeal

The University will advise you (usually within 10 working days) if there are grounds to convene an appeal Panel. At the end of the Appeal stage, the University will issue a Completion of Procedures letter.

If you feel your appeal has not been properly handled, you can apply to an independent body, once the University has issued the Completion of Procedures letter. The Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA) handles individual complaints once a student has exhausted the internal procedures of their university.