Like the proverb, 'it takes a village to raise a child', that's not too dissimilar to the people who may become involved in the disciplinary process.

• Student/Respondent - the individual who has had concerns raised about them.
• Reporting Party - a person who may have submitted a formal report / complaint against a student.
• Authorised University Officer (AUO) - this role is a multi-faceted one.  At its top level Regulation XVII (Conduct and Discipline of Students) says who occupies this role, but really this is about setting out the areas that handle disciplinary matters, Schools, Faculties, ResLife and Campus Life.  Each area needs to have a scheme of delegation down to the people who put the AUO role into practice.  More information on the AUO role can be found in the Guidance on Authorised University Officers.
• Investigator - somebody tasked with enquiring about a case prior to deciding whether a case needs referring to a Disciplinary Panel.  
• Chair - the person who leads the panel hearing.  The Chair could be a nominee of an AUO at Summary level. At University level, Chairs come from the membership of the Student Conduct and Discipline Committee (SCDC).
• Secretary - the person who looks after the case administration e.g. sends out papers, sets up the hearing, confirms the outcome.  This person could take notes at a hearing or a hearing may have its own note-taker.  Secretaries tend to have an active role in a case, but this doesn't extend to being a decision maker at the hearing.
• Panel member - different levels of panels have different panel membership requirements (Summary Disciplinary Panels (SDPs): 2-3, University Disciplinary Panels (UDPs): 4-5).  Panel members should be mindful of whether they have a connection with a student such that this may create a reasonable perception of bias.  
• Case Presenter - SDPs can go ahead without this role and based on the documentary material relating to a case.  Case Presenters may be needed at some complex SDPs, and they will always be required at UDPs.  More information on this role is available from the Guidance for Student Discipline Case Presenters.

A common ground of appeal quoted by students is procedural irregularity.  It is difficult to fully avoid procedural issues, but the best way to mitigate them to have good, reliable and consistent administration, making sure we're familiar with our own procedures and applying what they say.  

Prior to a hearing

Check the referral.  Does it make sense?  Has an explanation been given for the referral? Is all the information you think you (the student and the panel) might need there? 

If something isn't clear to you, then this will likely be the case for the student and the panel too.  Part of the principles of clarity and fairness, means everyone should be able to tell what the case is about.

Organising the hearing 

Depending on the frequency with which an area expects to receive cases, and the types of cases it receives, it can be handy to set Panels up in advance, so that as a case comes up it can be slotted in to the next available date.  

Remember for SDPs, students need 5 working days notice and for UDPs, 10 working days.  If there is a lot of material to work through, or perhaps as an adjustment to the process, there's no harm in working to a longer notice period.  However, we shouldn't work to a lesser notice period, unless a student agrees.

Notice example - 5 working days.  Invite goes out on a Monday, the hearing takes place the following Monday.  In other words work to there being 4 clear days in between.  

Hearing format

Online by default either by Teams or Zoom.  In-person on request (which can be refused if no good reason).

Invites and paperwork

The invite should:

• Summarise the allegation and say what definition from section 2 of Regulation XVII has been reached.
• Link to the Regulation and supporting procedures.
• Say when the hearing is happening and who'll be on the Panel.
• Advise students of their rights e.g. to submit a statement, attend with a Supporter.
• Link to welfare information.

A template invite used by Campus Life is available here.

It can be helpful to collate the paperwork into one document with a contents page.  This helps with navigation.  However, if the paperwork includes sizeable documents then it may be more practical to keep them as standalone documents.  

The invite and papers should go to the student's email (only including a student's personal address if there may be difficulties contacting them).  The invite and papers should be accessible from a secure storage space or a password protected document.  Getting access to Adobe Pro is highly recommended.

Lead up to the hearing

Look out for emails from the student and be responsive e.g. have they sent a statement, asked any questions etc.  If there's anything significant, check in with the Chair.

At the hearing

The administrative support should know the case as well as everyone else.  Be expected to introduce the case, assist the Chair in adhering to process and keep a record of the hearing.

After the hearing

Finalise the write up of the case.  Notes from the hearing along with a separate outcome letter are the recommended write-ups.  Some appeals have been upheld when there's not been a good record of the hearing. 

Outcomes usually need to be sent out within 10 working days from the hearing date.  It is good practice to send the student an email with the outcome soon after the hearing if the full written record is expected to be some time away.  If you need to work outside the 10 working days, explain why and keep the student updated.

The student should expect the University to apply its disciplinary procedures in a fair and consistent way.  There are a few key bits that are important to highlight.

Notice

The notice period for Summary Disciplinary Panels is 5 working days, and for University Disciplinary Panels it is 10 working days.  The University shouldn't work to less, except if the student agrees.

A student can ask for an extension, though this should only be granted if there is a good reason.  Students are expected to prioritise attendance at a hearing.  

Case details

We need to tell students what they're accused of and why, as this is key to how they can respond.  The invite should include key information, but the case materials should contain the details.  We should aim to be transparent in the materials and only make essential redactions.

Ability to object to Panel members

Students should be told who will be on a panel in advance and have the ability to object for good reason.  Though this is rare, this is a helpful protection to give the student the opportunity to raise issues around the independence of the panel e.g. the student knows X panel member socially.

Any objections should be considered by the Chair before the hearing.  If the objection is valid, the hearing may need to be delayed if an alternative panel member cannot be identified in good time.  

If the panel membership has changed for a different reason before the hearing, it is good to advise a student of this at the earliest opportunity.

Statement

A student can submit a written statement ahead of a hearing.  For SDPs, a statement is needed 2 working days before the hearing.  For UDPs, a statement is needed 3 working days before the hearing.  If a student doesn't attend a hearing, then it can proceed on the basis of a student's written submission.

Students can put together a statement in their own format, or they can submit it using the recommended pro-forma.  The University cannot advise on what a student puts in their statement; this assistance should only come from a student' Supporter.  

A late statement requires the permission of the Chair/Panel to be accepted for consideration.

Supporter

This is who the student confides in and who they may ask to attend a hearing.  This is usually a member of staff, fellow student or member of the Students' Union.  Guidance on this role is available in the Student Support Guidance.  A student should advise who their Supporter will be before the hearing.

Reasonable adjustments

The University should be open to considering reasonable adjustments to hearing.  See the Disclosures during the disciplinary process dropdown of Embedding a supportive approach in the disciplinary process.

It isn't an exact science to allocate a case to a particular level of handling.  A student may not be found to have committed misconduct at all.  However, at a high level, we should consider the seriousness and complexity of a case and, if there was an adverse finding against a student, what sort of penalty might this attract or should a student be exposed to.

The three levels are Fast-Track, Summary Disciplinary Panels and University Disciplinary Panels.  

Fast-track is explained in more detail in section 2 of the Procedure for Summary Disciplinary Panels and Procedure for the University Disciplinary Panel.

For academic malpractice, the table at paragraph 5.3 of the Academic Malpractice Procedure informs case allocation.  

A hearing has two main introductory parts:

1. The Panel meet privately and receive a brief overview of the case and can talk through an procedural issues e.g. the student hasn't arrived, the student submitted a late statement.  This helps the hearing to run more smoothly.  However, this part of the hearing should not be used to discuss the case e.g. I think the student has breached the Regulation because XYZ; this needs to wait until you've heard from the student.
2. The student (and any Case Presenter) is brought in.  Everyone can then introduce themselves, the purpose and format of the meeting can be set out and some initial checks and confirmations can be made.

Though all hearings may not work to the same level of formality of the University Disciplinary Panel, it may be helpful to read the UDP Chair Checklist.  Following a checklist can help make sure hearings cover all the points they need to and mean students are being treated consistently in terms of process.  

Initial hearing format

• Post-introduction, the hearing should then follow the format below, depending on who is present:
• Overview of the case if there's a Case Presenter
• Opportunity for the Panel to question the Case Presenter
• Opportunity for the student to question the Case Presenter 
• Response from the student (its recommended this lasts for no longer that 15 minutes)
• Opportunity for the Panel to question the student
• Opportunity for the Case Presenter to question the student 
• Hear from a witness if there is one attending, with opportunities for questions.
• Give the student an opportunity for a final statement.
• Panel ask the student if the accept, or not, having committed misconduct. 

Being inquisitive

There can be cases where there are no questions for certain parties.  It is not a requirement of the procedure to ask questions and sometimes written materials can speak for themselves.  

Questions mostly come from the Panel.  The Panel is not there to investigate a case; it should have been set out beforehand what the concerns in the case are what the reasons for the referral are.  Where there has been a substantive investigation beforehand, the Panel may see a written report and interview transcripts.

Though the Panel should be able to ask for clarity, explanations and viewpoints, this aligns more with being inquisitive.  The Panel aren't there to make a case, they're there to decide upon whether a case has been made out to their satisfaction.  Though a case may have satisfied an Authorised University Officer to lead to the referral, the Panel is tasked with reaching its own independent decision.

Filtering questions

Some cases can be contentious and students may not be happy with being referred to a Panel and this disagreement may be seen in how they present.  To lessen the contentiousness it can be helpful for the Chair to filter questions between parties.  This means that the Chair can rule out questions that don't need to be asked or to rephrase questions if needed.

Avoiding conveying a firm view

Panel members will have read materials beforehand and so should have knowledge of a case before a hearing.  This preparation may have informed questions they wish to ask and may feed into the final decisions they reach.  However, Panels are independent and so hearings should be approached with an open mind.  Members should avoiding making statements that confirm or infer that they have already formed a view of a case.

Being empathetic

Panels should aim to maintain a professional and respectful atmosphere at hearings, being mindful that a hearing may be a difficult and unusual environment for various participants, particular students who may not have been involved in the disciplinary process before.  Hearings need to follow process, and may need a firm approach, but there's no reason that a hearing can't have human and personal touches, rather than being overly transactional.

Finding v. penalty

The finding is the decision of the Panel that says whether a student has done what they've been accused of.

The penalty is the sanction that is imposed only if there is an adverse finding against the student.

Best practice is for a hearing to have a private recess to make a finding, return to announce that, collect information that may inform a penalty, then have another private recess to decide upon a penalty. 

Time constraints and resourcing mean that this isn't always a practical approach at summary level and Panels may need to collect all information and then have one private recess.  In this situations Panels still need to separate out the finding from a penalty - what has factored into the finding and what has factored into a penalty.  For example, previous offences, academic standing and mitigating circumstances are not likely to relevant to a finding, but could be highly relevant to a penalty.

Allowing the student some control

Before the Panel make a finding, the Panel should ask the student whether they accept what they've been accused of.  If so, the Panel can quite reasonably rely on this and does not need to reach a finding.  This can be part of the student's reflective journey around the misconduct.  If the student doesn't accept or there's any ambiguity or the student hasn't engaged with the process, then it best for the Panel to reach its own finding.

Commenting on the investigation/referral

A student may raise concerns with how their case has arrived at a hearing.  For example, the investigation took a long time to conclude, the investigator didn't interview certain people.  Putting to one-side whether the student has or hasn't committed misconduct, it can be helpful for the Panel to note whether it found it appropriate for the case to be referred, and whether it considers there have been procedural issues that require commenting on and if/how these have been considered by the Panel.  For example, student X said witness Y should have been interviewed during the investigation, but the Panel considered it had sufficient information on which to base a decision.

Reasons 

The Panel need to identify why it has made a decision either way.  What information has been relied on?  What definitions have been breached?

The rationale is for the Panel to arrive at, but this doesn't remove the need to communicate this to the student so that they understand the decision, allowing them to learn from the case or challenge at appeal if they choose to.

The depth of reasoning should be proportionate to the issues raised in a case.  The more complex the case, the more issues a Panel will likely need to discuss.  However, at a base level, the Panel need to say why it thinks there has, or hasn't, been a breach of section 2 of Regulation XVII.  This may involve some objective interpretation to the misconduct definitions under section 2 as they can be quite broad.  

The balance of probabilities

The balance of probabilities is not a new or novel concept.  However, a person may not have come across it outside of law or the disciplinary process.  In The Sign of Four by Arthur Conan Doyle Sherlock Holmes explains to Dr Watson how he doesn't guess or necessarily reach definitive positions, but uses deduction and observation across the likelihood of different events occurring.

In student discipline terms, the University needs only to work to the balance of probabilities to reach decisions.  This means being satisfied, to over 50%, that something has likely occurred.  A Panel need not reach a mathematical determination of X evidence being worth 10% and Y evidence being worth 20%, it need only identify the reasons what has led to the conclusion of something being likely.  It is great if Panels can be more certain, but all they're expected to do is to see if they can find the extra 1% that tips a case into be proven.  This can leave a large margin of error and sometimes leaves Panels conflicted around borderline cases.  

The balance of probabilities is not to be confused with beyond reasonable doubt.  The latter is associated with criminal proceedings where courts needs to satisfy themselves closer to certainty that someone has done what they're accused of.

Factors that may influence a penalty

The Guidance on Applying Student Disciplinary Penalties states what penalties are available, to who, what they mean and what may feed into a penalty decision.

Like with making a decision on a finding, there isn't a mathematical formula for what penalties to apply.  Panel's need to identify penalties that are proportionate to what a student has been found to have done wrong.  General misconduct penalties are often practical actions that are expected, whereas academic malpractice penalties relate to a student's assessments and degree.  

Section 3 of the penalty guidance says what factors may go into a penalty decision.  Note that some of these will only be relevant to a penalty and should not influence a finding e.g. a student shouldn't be found to have committed malpractice before they have done so before.

It can be helpful to allow the student an opportunity to say if there's anything they want the Panel to consider before applying a penalty.  Time permitting, a Panel could ask the student's Supporter if they'd like to add anything as well.  However, any final decision is reached by the Panel in private, and it is for the Panel to identify its own reasoning.

Levels of penalty

The Procedure for Summary Disciplinary Panels and the Procedure for the University Disciplinary Panel already limit what penalties are available to each level of Panel but the end decision rests with the Panel on the day.  Even where a case goes to a UDP, this doesn't force them to apply a significant sanction when there has been a finding.

It can be helpful for Panels to work through the range, from the bottom up, until they identify what penalties they wish to apply.  Some can sometimes be easily discounted.  On occasion, a case may be so serious though that a Panel jumps to the higher sanctions.

Precedent, and consistency with previous or similar cases, can be helpful when determining the level of penalty.

Multiple penalties

A Panel is not limited to applying one penalty and may apply a package of penalties.

Practicality of the penalty

A Panel should consider how it expects a particular penalty to be applied and what the arrangements might be around this.  For example, to complete a training requirement in X working days.

Academic penalties

When thinking about proportionality, in academic cases, Panels should try to understand the likely effect of any academic penalties.  For example, what does a mark of zero mean for the student's degree.  Sometimes this just can't be known as the student's results aren't available and the Panel can't see into the future.  However, most academic penalties will lead to a depression of a unit or degree average.  Panels may need to think about reassessment opportunities and compensation.  If in doubt, the Panel should express its intention in applying an academic penalty, so the people that need to action the penalty know what is expected.

Section 3.3.4 of the penalty guidance has a helpful table which summarises the various degree regulations to helpful navigate them at a high level.

The master Student Discipline Referral Form has a Penalty Consequences Form that helps capture how academic penalties may affect a student's studies.  Local areas may use variants of this Form.

Remember that the Disciplinary Panel decision overrides that of the Exam Board.  Exam Boards can't remove a penalty from a student.  However, this doesn't prevent the Exam Board from identifying options for the student within the applicable degree regulations providing the penalty stays in place.

There are three main levels of communicating the outcome:

• Time permitting the outcome to the hearing should be announced at the end of a hearing.  
• The written hearing outcome letter should usually be sent to a student within 10 working days of the hearing.  Pending this, to give a student more immediate closure, it can be helpful to send the student a brief email after a hearing to advise of (1) the finding, (2) the penalties applied, (3) when the fuller outcome might be expected and (4) signpost to support.  This email doesn't need to include any rationale and does not start the appeal timeframe.
• A hearing outcome letter send password protected to the student.  This should summarise that a hearing took place and when, what the finding was and why, what the penalties imposed were and why, and advise of the option to appeal. 

Internal communication

The outcome should be sent to the staff members who need to know the outcome and who have a substantive involvement in the case.  This could, for example, be the referring member of staff, the investigator or someone who needs to implement the outcome.  

Sharing the outcome should be proportionate to the staff member's role.  For example, do they need to know the full outcome or is a summary sufficient.

Recording the outcome

The hearing materials, records and outcome should be securely stored by the team that has handled the case.  

Case data is collected annually by the Teaching and Learning Delivery Team for the Senate Report and so maintaining a database or spreadsheet of key case data can be helpful for these data returns.  For example, what the case related to, what the finding was, what penalty was applied etc.  This can double up as a local precedent list for panels too.

Though the Division of Campus Life (Advice and Response Team) is the policy contact for student discipline, it is the Division of Student and Academic Services (Teaching and Learning Delivery Team (tld-acd@manchester.ac.uk)) which handles appeals made by students against Disciplinary Panels.

Timeframes

Whether it is an appeal against a Summary Disciplinary Panel or a University Disciplinary Panel, a student has 10 working days to submit an appeal.  This is from the date of the outcome letter, not the date of the hearing.

Process

An appeal is reviewed as a documentary exercise considering the student's arguments and the original decision and case materials against, one or more of the permitted grounds:

• Procedural irregularity in the operation of the disciplinary process of such a nature as to cause reasonable doubt as to whether the decision of the SDP/UDP might have been different had the irregularity not occurred;
• Availability of new evidence which could not reasonably have been expected to be presented at an earlier stage;
• The disproportionate nature of the penalty. 

The appeals process is not about reconsidering the case afresh.

The first level of case will affect how the appeal is handled:

• For appeals against an SDP, these will be considered by the Director of Student and Academic Services.
• For appeals against a UDP, these will either be consider by the Vice-President for Teaching, Learning and Students or by an Appeal Board.

Outcome

Appeal outcomes can confirm or set aside the finding, and to confirm, set aside, reduce or increase the penalty.  If a procedural irregularity or new evidence that is material and substantial has been found to exist the case may be referred back for reconsideration.  

Students will receive a Completion of Procedures letter after their appeal has been decided upon which will set out the decision and any reasons for it.  

The student has 12 months to use the Completion of Procedures letter to make a complaint externally to the OIA.