The University handles a large volume of cases each year across different teams and covering different subject matter.

Case data is collected across an academic year and then provided, during the subsequent academic year, to the Division of Student and Academic Service (Teaching and Learning Delivery Team).  The Teaching and Learning Delivery Team use the data to produce a report for the University's top academic body, Senate, and then publish the report online around February.  

Copies of the available Senate Reports can be accessed here.

A Respondent on in the Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health was alleged to have committed sexual misconduct, including touching without consent and coercive behaviour, towards a  Reporting Student with whom they had been in a relationship.

It was considered that the Respondent had breached the following paragraphs of Regulation XVII:

• 2c) violent, indecent, disorderly, threatening or offensive behaviour or language however expressed (including via social media) towards any student, member of staff or visitor to the University;
• 2j) Sexual misconduct. See the Sexual Misconduct Procedure, Appendix One:
  • 1.1 Sexual intercourse or engaging in sexual acts without consent (sexual acts are defined as including, but not limited to, cunnilingus, fellatio, digital penetration and masturbation).
• 2i) discrimination, bullying, harassment and/or victimisation of any student, member of staff or visitor to the University, as defined in the University’s Dignity at Work and Study Policy.

The Respondent attended an online University Disciplinary Panel over two consecutive days.  The case was presented by an independent investigator and the Respondent made verbal statements and answered questions from the Panel. The Reporting Student also attended for a brief period to make a verbal statement and respond to questions.

The Respondent did not admit to the allegations and so the Panel discussed its findings in private.

The Panel discussed that the Respondent had provided several character witness statements but found that these did not provide substantive evidence relating to the allegations. The Panel agreed that the Respondent had been consistent in their account, but were concerned by some responses which alluded to a misplaced expectation towards having sex within a relationship, and the Panel found some of the Respondent’s behaviour had been coercive.

The Panel agreed that there was insufficient evidence to support all of the allegations raised.  The Respondent was not found in breach of paragraph 2j but, on the balance of probabilities, the Panel found that the Respondent was in breach of paragraphs 2c and 2i.

Reporting Students have the opportunity to submit Impact Statements to be consulted by a Panel should there be a finding of misconduct against a Respondent.  An Impact Statement from the Reporting Student was shared with the Panel for their consideration before applying a penalty.  It was the view of the Panel that the Respondent had not shown significant self-reflection of their behaviour, nor shown empathy towards the Reporting Student, and that this, along with the serious nature of the breach, would inform the penalties applied.

The Panel applied multiple penalties; a formal warning, a requirement for the Respondent to give an undertaking as to their future good conduct, write a written apology to the Reporting Student, a requirement to have no further contact with the Reporting Student, to undertake consent training, and to not return to study until the following academic year.  The Panel also applied a deferred penalty of expulsion to be imposed should a future breach of the Regulation occur.

A student from the Faculty of Science and Engineering was alleged to have committed ongoing harassment towards a member of staff, including the sharing of indecent images. Precautionary action through a suspension was taken pending the outcome to an investigation.  During the investigation, a further allegation arose that the student had used another student’s IT log-in details to further contact the staff member.

Following the investigation, it was alleged that the student had breached the following paragraphs of Regulation XVII:

• 2i) harassment, as defined under paragraphs 12-14 of the Dignity at Work and Study Policy.
• 2j) sexual misconduct, with specific reference to paragraphs 1.2 and Appendix One paragraphs 3.2 and 3.4 of the Sexual Misconduct Procedure.
• 2l) the misuse or unauthorised use of University computers and the communications network, with specific reference to paragraph 3.3 of the Acceptable Use of IT Procedure.

The student attended an online University Disciplinary Panel, during which the case was presented by a Lead Investigator from the University’s Advice and Response Team. The student made a short statement and answered questions from the Panel. The Reporting Party also attended to make a statement and answer questions.

The student accepted the allegations, meaning that the Panel did not need to make a finding and moved on to consider penalties and information that may inform those.   This included receiving an Impact Statement from the Reporting Party.

The Panel found the case to be serious, and that there had been an escalation in behaviour by the student. Though the Panel acknowledged that the student had agreed to the allegations, it was considered that the explanation given for their motive was not credible. It was the view of the Panel that the student did not show remorse for their actions, and that there was genuine risk that these behaviours may be repeated.

The Panel applied a penalty of expulsion from the University. This was thought necessary and proportionate by the Panel due to the need to mitigate future risk to the University community.

The student appealed this decision on the grounds that new evidence had become available that could not have been submitted during the time of the hearing. It was found that this evidence pre-dated the hearing and could have been submitted to the Panel. It was also considered that this evidence was not substantial and would not have changed the outcome of the hearing. The appeal was not upheld.

Addendum

As noted above, part of the case was that another student had shared their log-in details with the student under investigation.  This was accepted by the second student who explained why and apologised.  The second student received a warning for breaching the University’s Acceptable Use IT Policy.

Two students (Student A and Student B) from the Faculty of Humanities were alleged to have committed general misconduct due to inappropriate and threating behaviour towards a third student.  The behaviour of one student was serious enough to lead to a partial suspension as a precautionary measure.   

Following an investigation, student A was considered to have breached the following paragraphs of Regulation XVII:

• 2c) violent, indecent, disorderly, threatening or offensive behaviour or language however expressed (including via social media) towards any student, member of staff or visitor to the University.
• 2i) discrimination, bullying, harassment and/or victimisation of any student, member of staff or visitor to the University, as defined in the University’s Dignity at Work and Study Policy.
• 2n) conduct which may constitute a criminal offence where that conduct or the offence: i. takes place on University premises; or ii. affects or concerns other members of the University; or iv. itself constitutes misconduct within the provisions of this Regulation.

Student B was considered to have breached paragraph 2i) of Regulation XVII.

A University Disciplinary Panel was convened to consider the case. Student A opted to attend the hearing in-person and Student B opted to attend online. The students were seen by the Panel separately.  The Panel was able to amend its process to accommodate these requests.

For each student, the Case Presenter summarised the case and took questions from the Panel. The students could then make a verbal statement and answer questions.

Student A

Student A agreed that they had breached paragraphs 2c) and 2i) of the Regulation, but did not agree that they had breached paragraph 2n). The Panel discussed this in private and acknowledged that the student had accepted, but was planning to challenge, a police caution and so agreed it would not make a finding around criminality. Therefore, Student A was found to not be in breach of paragraph 2n).

Student  A disclosed some personal issues, including an application for mitigation, and this was considered by the Panel when determining a penalty.

The Panel agreed that the misconduct was serious, particularly an incident when Student A had physically threatened the third student and it was fortunate that they were not seriously injured. The Panel found that Student A had been reflective of their actions and shown both remorse and promised not to repeat the behaviour.

The Panel applied multiple penalties to Student A; a warning, a requirement for the student to give an undertaking as to their future good conduct, to write a letter of apology to the Reporting Student and to have no further contact with the Reporting Student. The Panel also applied a deferred penalty of exclusion to be imposed should a future breach of the Regulation occur.

Student B

Student B expressed how they did not have significant involvement in the incidents and felt they had been unfairly led by Student A to being present at some.  Student B did not agree to a breach of the Regulation. The Panel noted a worrying trend in Student B’s attendance at multiple incidents, but that their direct involvement had been minimal, and their explanation as to their behaviour had been credible. The Panel found that Student B was not in breach of paragraph 2i). However, it was recommended that Student B undertake Active Bystander training.

A student from the Faculty of Humanities was alleged to have committed academic malpractice in their dissertation, specifically that it contained falsified results and evidence of contract cheating. As part of a viva voce to explore these concerns, the student was unable to answer questions about the topic of their dissertation. It was considered by the School that the student had breached paragraph 2r) of Regulation XVII, relating to academic malpractice.

The student attended an online University Disciplinary Panel. Due to their limited English language skills, the student attended with a friend as a Supporter who also acted as a translator in an informal capacity.

The case was presented by an academic from the School. The student made a short statement and answered questions from the Panel, which were translated by their Supporter.

The student did not admit to the allegations. In a private discussion to determine whether a breach had occurred, the Panel shared the School’s concerns that the student had not been able to demonstrate how they acquired their results nor could they explain much about the topic of the dissertation.  The Panel considered this reinforced by the student’s limited English language skills. The Panel agreed that the work submitted for the dissertation was not the student’s own and that the student should not be eligible to obtain a degree from the University.  The Panel applied a penalty of expulsion and that the student’s registration be terminated.

Appeal

The student appealed on the grounds of the penalty being disproportionate. It was found that there were procedural irregularities in the Panel’s decision making, notably that the Panel’s discussion included that the student may not have authored work submitted for other units, but this had not been put to the student as an allegation and so should not have been relied upon in determining a penalty.  The appeal was upheld, with the recommendation that another University Disciplinary Panel be convened to consider the original allegation. This included another opportunity for the School to raise additional allegations relating to other units if they had substantive concerns.

Second Panel

A second online University Disciplinary Panel was held with a new panel. This remained focussed on the dissertation; the School did not make any additional allegations around other units.  The student did not attend, instead making themselves available for questions from the Panel via e-mail.

The student again did not agree to the allegation of academic malpractice. The Panel found that the student was in breach of the Regulation, a finding that in part relied upon the student now admitting fabricating results.  The Panel applied a mark of zero for the dissertation with no opportunity for resubmission.

This case also led to revisions in guidance for Supporters, including around who may act as a translator and when. Students who disclose limited English language skills, and/or express they may need additional support in this area, are encouraged to engage with the University Centre for Academic English (UCAE) English-language resource.  Outcome letters should signpost to this when a student is to continue studying post hearing.  Please see Embedding a Supportive Approach in the Disciplinary Process for more information.

A student studying in the Faculty of Science and Engineering was alleged to have caused property damage to their Halls of Residence due to affixing multiple posters using industrial paste.  It was also alleged that the student had refused to identify themselves when approached by staff.

It was considered that the student had breached the following paragraphs of Regulation XVII:

• 2o) failure to disclose name(s) and other relevant information to an officer or employee of the University in circumstances when it is reasonable to require that such information be given.
• 2g) conduct which causes damage to or defaces University property or the property of any student, member of staff or visitor to the University caused intentionally or recklessly, and/or misappropriation of such property.
• 2m) conduct which is a breach of any University Regulation, Policy, Procedure, Code and/or Agreement.

The student attended an in-person Summary Disciplinary Panel; their request for an in-person hearing being possible to facilitate.  The student gave a verbal statement and then responded to questions from the Panel.

The student did not agree to the allegations. The Panel spoke in private to discuss and make a finding.

The Panel acknowledged that the student had agreed to putting up approximately 5  posters around the vicinity of the building, and that they had used paste to make their removal more difficult. Regarding their refusal to identify themselves, they had likened speaking with staff to talking to the police and noted their ‘right to remain silent’. The Panel agreed that the posters had caused damage to property, and that the student’s reasoning to not identify themselves was not reasonable. This meant that the student had also not complied with their Terms and Conditions of Residence Agreement.  Therefore, the student was found to have breached the Regulation as had been alleged.

The Panel agreed that the student must contribute towards the cost of repairs to the building. The student was required to pay £10 per poster that was affixed, which totalled £50. The student was also given a warning and a requirement to give an undertaking as to their future good conduct.

Appeal and OIA

The student appealed the decision on the grounds of procedural irregularity and disproportionate nature of penalty. No procedural irregularity was found, the penalty was considered to have been appropriate, and so the appeal was not upheld.

The student subsequently made a complaint to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA) about the disciplinary outcome.  Students can complain to the OIA when they have completed the University’s internal procedures.  The OIA found the complaint to be Not Justified and found the University to have followed its procedures and had given reasons for the decisions it reached.

A student from the Faculty of Humanities was alleged to have sexually touched a Reporting Student, without their consent, while at a nightclub. It was considered that the Respondent may have breached paragraph 2j) of the Regulation, which relates to sexual misconduct.

The Respondent attended an online Summary Disciplinary Panel. Due to the contentious nature of the allegation, the case was presented by a Lead Investigator from the Advice and Response Team. The Respondent gave a verbal statement and answered questions from the Panel.

The Respondent did not admit to the allegations and so the Panel had a private discussion to reach a finding. The Panel found that the investigation had been necessary and was conducted in a fair manner. The Panel noted that witness accounts varied, and the incident itself had not been observed by any third party.  Later messages sent between the Respondent and Reporting Student were thought to be open to interpretation, but the Panel found that the Respondent had not made an admission of misconduct within these messages.

The Panel agreed that it was likely that the Reporting Student had experienced sexual misconduct, but it could not be determined who was responsible given the busy and transient nature of the nightclub. On the balance of probabilities, the Panel found that the Respondent was not in breach of paragraph 2j.

It was recommended by the Panel that the Respondent have no further contact with the Reporting Student. They also advised the Respondent to complete the online module ‘Staying Safe’ due to a disclosure of taking illegal substances on the night of the alleged incident.

Nine Respondents were alleged to have committed general misconduct relating to harassment of a potentially anti-Semitic nature towards a Reporting Student in a social media group associated to their studies.  This largely related to the use of particular symbolic reactions to posts made by the Reporting Party in the group.

Following an investigation, one Respondent’s case was not referred into the formal stages of the  disciplinary process as their individual case was considered possible to address via informal action.  Eight Respondents were referred for formal handling. 

Following In an initial review of the eight cases, it was determined that the behaviour for seven Respondents could be addressed via the fast-track process.  It was found that these students had harassed, to different extents, the Reporting Student over a number of weeks, though this was not considered anti-Semitic in nature.

The seven Respondents accepted being in breach of paragraph 2i) of Regulation XVII (“discrimination, bullying, harassment and/or victimisation of any student, member of staff or visitor to the University, as defined in the University’s Dignity at Work and Study Policy”) and received a reprimand and warning about future behaviour.  One Respondent from the seven was also required to write a reflective statement about their behaviour as there was an element of aggravation to their individual case..

It was alleged that the remaining eighth Respondent had also harassed the Reporting Student in person and so their case was referred to a Summary Disciplinary Panel.

The student attended an SDP hearing, during which they did not agree to the allegations. The Panel found that the student had harassed the student for a prolonged period of time, and, on the balance of probabilities, had intimidated the Reporting Student in person. The student was found in breach of paragraph 2i, and issued with a warning, a requirement upon the student to give an undertaking as to their future good conduct, and they needed to complete Diversity training.

A student from the Faculty of Science and Engineering was alleged to have committed examination malpractice due to bringing in unauthorised notes written on the back of a calculator.

The student attended an online Summary Disciplinary Panel, during which they did not admit to the allegation. In a private discussion, the Panel found that the student’s explanation – that they had written on the calculator during the exam, choosing not to write notes in their answer booklet as they would be “hard to find” – to lack credibility. The student was found in breach of paragraph 2r of Regulation XVII, academic malpractice.

In determining a penalty, the Panel considered that the student had been unwell during the exam and had received support from a medical professional.

The Panel applied the penalties of a warning, and a recorded mark of zero for the examination paper, noting the student’s intent, lack of admission and how the integrity of the full exam had been compromised.  Should the student have had the opportunity to re-attempt the exam, their mark would be capped at the lowest compensatable fail mark.

The student appealed the outcome on the grounds that new evidence (relating to ill health) had become available to them to submit for consideration, and that the penalty had been disproportionate. It was found that evidence of ill health had previously been submitted to, and considered, by the Panel; though the student had been unwell this did not explain or justify the occurrence of academic malpractice and the student could have raised these through established mitigating circumstances processes.  It was agreed that the penalty was proportionate in the circumstances. The appeal was not upheld.

A student from the Faculty of Science and Engineering was alleged to have committed examination malpractice due to removing their answer book after the conclusion of an exam and returning it to University staff hours later.

The student was invited to an online Summary Disciplinary Panel but did not attend or submit a written statement in their absence.

The hearing went ahead in the student’s absence; the Panel took the position that they should treat the case as though the student had denied the allegation.  The Panel found that the student had compromised the integrity of the exam and had breached paragraph 2r of Regulation XVII, academic malpractice.

The Panel applied penalties of a warning, and a recorded mark of zero for the examination paper.  There was no advancement of any mitigation or explanation, and the student’s actions had compromised the integrity of the examination.  Should the student have the opportunity to reattempt the exam, their mark would be capped at the lowest compensatable fail mark.

The student appealed the outcome on the grounds of procedural irregularity, stating that they were informed by University staff that they were to be contacted by the Scheduling Team and therefore did not read the notification about the Panel hearing from the Conduct and Discipline Team.  It was found that it was the student’s responsibility to read all of their e-mails, as outlined in their Programme Handbook. The appeal was not upheld.

The student complained to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIA) setting out the same arguments around a procedural irregularity. The complaint was found to be Not Justified due to the University correctly following its disciplinary procedures and University’s decision being reasonable.

Two students from the Faculty of Humanities were issued a Noise Abatement Notice (NAN) by Manchester City Council due to a house party at their residence.  Referrals of this nature are made by Manchester Student Homes to the Conduct and Discipline Team in Campus Life.  The referral was based on a NAN being issued and complaints from residents. 

Ordinarily first offences of such a nature would be handled through the Fast-Track process, but this case was viewed as potentially aggravated by significant promotion of the event on social media.  Therefore, the students were invited to attend an online Summary Disciplinary Panel.  Students in cases of this nature are often seen together unless they wish to speak to the Panel individually. 

Both students accepted that they had breached paragraph 2h) of Regulation XVII, “conduct which damages, or has the potential to damage, the University’s relationship or reputation with its local communities or other bodies or organisations.”

The Panel applied penalties of a warning and for the students to undertake Student Citizenship and Social Responsibility training, delivered via Manchester Student Homes.  These outcomes are common for first offences of breaching 2(h) by way of a house party, where students have shown insight and apologised.