Misconduct at the University is often split between academic malpractice and general misconduct, in other words, misbehaviour that arises in, and affects, assessments and exams, compared to other forms of misbehaviour.

Academic malpractice cases one of the most common types of cases that arise at the University and so there are lots of cases that occur each year.  The handling of the cases is split across the University, which tend to indicate the level of seriousness of the case. 

Paragraph 2r) of Regulation XVII states a form of misconduct is "academic malpractice in connection with any examination or assessment (see the Academic Malpractice Procedure)".

The Academic Malpractice Procedure

Academic malpractice for students is governed by the Academic Malpractice Procedure.  As a quick guide:

• The procedure starts on a more positive note within section 2 to set out what Academic Integrity is, how the University can maintain it and what we expect of our students.
• Section 3 provides the definitions of various forms of academic malpractice.  There's the umbrella definition (which can be used if the other don't fit), which essentially says any action intentionally or unintentionally which leads to unearned or undeserved credit could be viewed as malpractice.  It includes Plagiarism, Self-Plagiarism, Collusion, Falsification or Fabrication of Results, Contract Cheating and Examination Malpractice.
  • There are indicators of malpractice and poor academic practice in the procedure.  The former is addressed through the disciplinary process, the latter taken account of through feedback and marking.
• Section 4 sets out how different types of cases should be handled.  The take-home message is that there needs to be reasons for finding malpractice which are supported by evidence.  Where there is complexity to a case, additional evidence is needed or multiple parties involved, holding meetings (up to vivas) may be advisable.  Referrals then need agreement from an Authorised University Officer (or their nominee).
• Section 5 describes the options for handling cases and the table at 5.3 sets out how cases can be split between Fast-Track, Summary level and University level.  Indicatively, the lower the level of study of the student, the lack of previous and the limited amount of work (or its weighting) that is affected, the lower in the process a case might be handled.  The inverse of these may mean the case requires handling at a higher level.  The escalation through the table is generally:
  • School level Summary Disciplinary Panel
  • Faculty level Summary Disciplinary Panel
  • Division of Campus Life University Disciplinary Panel

The slight exception to the above is within centrally timetabled physical exams arranged by the Scheduling Team.  For organisation structure reasons, these cases are mostly referred to a Division of Campus Life Summary Disciplinary Panel; these cases are more about determining the possession of unauthorised materials which does not need the same academic lead as other forms of academic malpractice.

When a case of academic malpractice goes to a disciplinary panel, it is recommended that this is led by or arranged in partnership with academic colleagues, to embed an academic judgement into the decision made.  Panels will review a case to make a finding, on the balance of probabilities, and if this finding is against a student, the panel is then tasked with applying a proportionate penalty.  Penalties for academic malpractice are different to those for general misconduct and are largely aimed at adjusting a student's results.

Student courses

One of the most up-to-date resources available that covers malpractice is the Library's My Learning Essentials (MLE) course on Academic Integrity.  Though aimed at students, it may be helpful for staff alike.  There are lots of other useful study skills courses and guides on MLE.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is embedded into almost all systems, search engines and software.  Its unrealistic to put a blanket ban on the use of AI in many forms of assessment for students.  For example, if you use spellcheck on Microsoft Word, that is a use of AI.  The Academic Malpractice Procedure is not trying to prevent these general uses.

Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) is different.  This is where someone may put a prompt into  online system, like ChatGPT, commonly a question with parameters ("In 300 words, please can you explain the benefits of the First Past The Post electoral system"), and the system returns an answer using the various sources it has access to.  GenAI is both fascinating and scary, and is only becoming more sophisticated carrying with it many possibilities.  There's no point ignoring it, as students know about it, use it and it isn't going away.   

GenAI should make us think carefully about the assessments set for students; some may be more susceptible to the misuse of GenAI than others.  If there are particular parameters on the use of GenAI in a certain Programme or an assessment, then these need to be communicated to students.

At a University level, the position taken in the Academic Malpractice Procedure, is that the misuse of GenAI could be a form of Plagiarism.  The rationale for this is that students are copying the work produced by something else; a bit like if a student copied and pasted from an article.  Students should acknowledge the contribution of GenAI to their work like they would a book e.g. use quotation marks, reference in footnotes, include in the bibliography etc.  

Paragraph 2r) of Regulation XVII states a form of misconduct is "academic malpractice in connection with any examination or assessment (see the Academic Malpractice Procedure)".  Paragrarph 3.1.2.1 states that Plagiarism is "The act of using ideas, words, or creations from either humans or digital systems, such as Generative Artificial intelligence, without proper attribution or permission and presenting them, either intentionally or unwittingly, as one’s own work."

Section 2.4 of the Academic Malpractice Procedure links out to the Guidelines for Staff and Students Using or Developing AI.  These Guidelines may be updated on a regular basis given the changing nature of AI.  The Library's My Learning Essentials course on Academic Integrity has a section within it on AI and there is further guidance on how to reference it.

Detecting and handling GenAI misuse

Case of academic malpractice involving GenAI are to be handled in the same way as any other case.  The challenge is around detection.  The University does not endorse the use of software that says it can detect the use of AI as results returned are believed to be mixed.  Within a body of other evidence, software results may be indicative and add to a case, but they cannot carry a case alone.

Instead colleagues need to be alert for indicators of AI misuse.  Of the cases identified at the University over 2023-25, students leaving the Gen AI prompts and using phantom (made up) references have been the most common indicators.  You can find a presentation extract here which sets, out from different sources, what may indicate the use of GenAI in a piece of work.  

Historically, universities applied what was known as the Zellick Guideline (1994) about handling of allegations of sexual misconduct, which in summary placed action in this area in the realms of the police rather than universities.  This changed following the UUK Changing the Culture Report in 2016 which recommended the approach be reversed and that universities should be taking action.  This led to various changes both procedurally and organisationally at the University of Manchester.

These cases are largely handled by the Advice and Response Team: 

• Safeguarding, Hate and Gender-based Violence - colleagues in this team will take disclosures from students, provide emotional and practical advice and advise students of their options e.g. how to make a formal report.
• Lead Investigators - colleagues will be tasked with investigating allegations of sexual misconduct (and related issues).
• Conduct and Discipline Team - colleagues will arrange the disciplinary panels that consider cases where there is a potential case to answer.

Policy

Paragraph 2(j) of Regulation XVII states that a form of misocnduct is "sexual misconduct and/or gender-based violence (see the Sexual Misconduct and GenderBased Violence Procedure)".  The Procedure then sets out how cases are handled and additional definitions that fall under paragraph 2(j).

Sometimes closely linked to paragraph 2(j) is 2(i) "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".  Depending on the seriousness and complexity of the issue raised, a Dignity a Work and Study complaint may instead be invetigated by a student's Faculty rather than within Advice and Response.

Case handling

The University recongises the sensitive nature of cases of sexual misconduct and gender-based violence and will adopt an approach that is mindful of this.  Both a Reporting Party and Respondent will each have access to the same provision of support from the University.  

Investigators and disciplinary panels are there to provide independence to a case - to reach conclusions objectively on what the evidence supports was most likely to have occurred. This means that there can be a margin of error either way.  A lack of finding of misconduct by an investigator or disciplinary panel does not necessarily infer they fully support one acount over another and should not be equated with a more subjective stance of belief.  However, it is natural in cases with two opposing parties, for one to be left disappointed by a case outcome.

The University fully appreciates the effect of misconduct of this nature on individuals.  However, the University does need to look at the appropriate level of the disciplinary process to consider a case - summary level or University level.  The University will take account of the seriousness of the allegation and what panel appears to have an appropriate penalty range if the allegations were to be upheld.

We attempt to schedule hearings on a per semester basis.  The length of hearings will fluctuate and will depend on the nature and range of the allengations and the numer of people involved.  It could be that a hearing lasts 1/2 day or 2 days; this only becomes known after an investigation.  It may mean hearings need to arraged on an ad hoc basis.  The number of panel members who sit on hearings of this nature are fewer than usual UDPs given their specialist nature.

Disciplinary panels will have a range of penalties.  Non-contact between parties is a common penalty.  For some cases, training may be identified as a option, such as through the completion of an online course with a reflective essay and debrief with a caseworker.  An apology may be considered if the Reporting Party has asked for this.  The Panel is likely to look at the more significant sanctions where there has been a lack of insight, reflection and reassurance by the Respondent.

Involvement of the parties in the disciplinary process

For a Respondent it is expected that they will attend a hearing (whether online or in person).  Except for an private recesses / discussions for the panel, a Respondent should make themselves available throughout the hearing.  The Respondent will receive the same information that the panel has.  The Respondent can also submit an advance statement for the panel's attention.

For a Reporting Party, the Investigator will take an initial view on whether they think they need to attend a hearing e.g. is the allegation admitted or not, can they add anything further to the panel's enquiries.  Where a Reporting Party is indicated as being preferred to attend, their Caseworker will be able to talk to them about the practicalities e.g. the Reporting Party will only attend part way through a hearing as a witness, there'll be no direct discussion between them and the Respondent. 

The Panel will unlikely allow private audiences with the Reporting Party about material statements as it is important that the Respondent has the opportunity to hear what is said.  It remains at the dicretion of the Reporting Party whether they do attend, but it may affect a panel's decision making to not hear from them.  That said, the Panel will have access to all the information gathered during an investigation and may be able to query aspects of the case with the investigator.  A Reporting Party is able to submit an Impact Statement prior to a hearing, but this will only be shared at the hearing if the Panel reach a finding of misconduct.  

Whereas a Respondent is entitled to a full hearing outcome with reasons and has the ability to appeal, a Reporting Party will only be provided with a brief letter stating the findings and any penalties which they need to be aware of.  This is to protect the Respondent's personal information.  A Reporting Party is unable to appeal a Panel's decision.

Resources

• Training for students and staff
• Guidance for Disciplinary Panels in Sexual Misconduct Cases
• Addressing Student Sexual Violence in Higher Education (Humphreys and Towl) - a book

When students register at the University they agree to the terms and conditions of registration, which Regulation XVII (Conduct and Discipline of Students) forms part of.  Regulation XVII starts to apply when a student registers until the point they leave.

The University's community is very broad: it could mean the physical community of Fallowfield where a number of students live, partners engaged in the University research or outreach, or individuals who follow the University online.  Whatever the setting, students are effectively acting as an ambassador for the University and so the expectations of good behaviour apply regardless of whether the student is in a lecture theatre, surfing the internet or travelling abroad. 

The University does not actively monitor student's behaviour online or in the community, but tracing an individual back to the place they study or work, has never been easier with the prominance and accessibility of social media.  Some issues even get reported in the wider media.  Students should be mindful of the footprint that they leave and how this may follow them and affect their time at the University.  

Paragraph 2(h) of Regulation XVII states one definition of misconduct is "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 Advice and Response Team will usually handle cases of this nature.

Noise abatement

A number of students move out of halls and start to live amongst local communities in Manchester.  This is a milestone towards independence and developing boundaries.  Most students are respectful neighbours.  A common issue that arises is around noise complaints.  Though the University wants students to enjoy themselves, it is easy to forget that they're living around other students or non-students who may not appreciate it when social gatherings are arranged. 

Noise is the primary issue and can cause individuals distrubed sleep.  Sometimes knocking on the immeiate neighbour's door is insufficient as noise is very transient.  Social gatherings also carry with them the risk of anti-social behaviour e.g. going on to neighbour's propery or theft or damage within a residence.  Students should think carefully about the volume of people they invite.  In 2014, a floor in a student residence collapsed because too many people had been invited in.

Manchester Student Homes is an organisation that sits between the University of Manchester and Manchester Metropolitan University.  One of the many things Manchester Student Homes does is look at community coheision.  Where a community-based issue arises (whether about noise or anything else), Manchester Student Home may receive complaints, or it may receive notification from the council that a Noise Abatement Notice (NAN) - a legal notice stating that noise from a property was observed as a nuisance - was issued to residents.  Manchester Student Homes will make a visit to student properties, identify the students of concern and then refer cases over to the applicable University for handling.

The Conduct and Discipline Team will review the referral to identify an appropriate level of handling.  Most cases are handled via the Fast-Track process, where it is recommended students receive a warning and undertake training (a course arranged via Manchester Student Homes).  Where there are factors that indicate additional seriousness e.g. large scale disturbance, multiple complaints, previous offences etc then this may lead to the case being escalated to a disciplinary panel.

Where students are contacted about a disciplinary matters of this nature, the household will generally be viewed as jointly responisible as they have conrol over the household.  However, if a student was genuinely not present, and this can be established, the University will likely withdraw the case against them.

Social media

A number of students are reported to the University each year about their online behaviour e.g. something that they've posted or something that they've messaged to someone else.  People should think carefully about their online profile.  Though causing offence is not necessarily a disciplinary issue in itself, people should think carefully about whether they would say something they've posted to someone in person or would they like someone to say this to them.

The University provides information to students about their online activity in the Guidance on Social Media for Students.  

Students should also think about whether their online behaviour goes against the Acceptable Use Policy i.e. the agreement they make with the University to be able to use the University's IT resources.  The risk here, is that if this is established, this may lead to account monitoring or withdrawal.  

Paragraph 2(e) of Regulation XVII (Conduct and Discipline of Students) defines a type of misconduct as "fraud, deceit, deception or dishonesty in relation to the University or its staff or students or in connection with holding any office in the University, in a Halls Executive group or equivalent body, in the Students’ Union or the Athletic Union, or in relation to being a student of the University".

The University expects students to engage with its processes in good faith, acting openly and telling the truth and most students do this.  The University needs to aim for consistent processes amongst the student body, so some students aren't gaining a benefit to misbehaviour.    Dishonesty is likely the most prominant to arise from definition 2(e).  It is better for students to engage with the University with any issues they are experiencing, so the University can help a student navigate this constructively without resorting to misconduct.  

SEAtS

In September 2024, the University introduced the Student Engagement and Attendance System (“SEAtS”), to enable students and staff to log attendance at teaching sessions (such as lectures and seminars).  SEAtS is intended to help monitor attendance and actively support a student’s engagement and wellbeing. SEAtS is a compulsory requirement for the majority of taught students and for most students requires them to download an App which they then enter a PIN or QR code into when at a teaching and learning session..

More comprehensive information on SEAtS is available for staff on the SEAtS Sharepoint site and for students on the Student Support website.  The Student Support website states “The university expects students to be truthful about their attendance. Students should only record their own attendance and must not share QR or PIN codes with anyone else. Please refer to the Conduct and Discipline of Students document.”  Overseeing attendance monitoring is the Policy on Recording and Monitoring Student Attendance and Engagement (“Attendance Policy”).

The University is still finalising its approach to handling SEAtS concerns.  Most recently, the Teaching and Learning Delivery Team has been doing ad hoc monitoring of student check-in data.  Unfortunately, through this, some students have been identified as making an unusual check-in, usually where an activity has not taken place and the check-in code never released.  These concerns are passed to the central Conduct and Discipline Team, which may first enquire with the student, including allowing them to raise any welfare concerns.  Any explanations provided may be checked with the Teaching and Learning Delivery Team to determine their credibility.  Most cases are being dealt with via the Fast-Track disciplinary process, with a recommended formal warning.  

If access to SEAtS data expands, it may be that the initial enquiries are first handled by a student's School and Schools deal with first offence cases through Fast-Track.. 

Falsified evidence

Where a student submit false evidence during a formal process, in order that they may get a tangible benefit from their actions, this may be viewed as serious misconduct.  The University will consider the level of dishonesty, whether it persisted and the potential benefit that the dishonesty may have led to.  Where dishonesty is identified, the linked process should discount the potentially problematic evidence from their process.  If the student remains a student at the University, then they can be referred into the disciplinary process.  If the student is no longer a student, then they need not be referred through the disciplinary process unless they return in the future.

Further information in this area can be found in the Guidance on falsified evidence.

Not accepting an allegation

During an investigation or at a disciplinary panel, a student will be asked whether they accept the allegations against them.  Often it is viewed positively is a student makes an admission.  Where a student doesn't make an admission, this does not necessarily equate to being dishonest.  In the court process outside the University, allowance would first be made for an individual to be unreliable or mistaken.  For example, a student may not accept that they've committed Plagiarism, but a Panel may find that they have; this does mean a student was being dishonest and a Panel may be more experienced in applying the definition of misconduct to a student's actions.

Admissions

When a student applies to study at the University, their application should be correct and truthful; applicants have responsibility for this, not their agents.  Beyond genuine mistakes, where significant issues are identifed in a student's application, commonly a misrepresentation of a student's qualifications or previous study, regardless of when (i.e. before or after registration), these will be dealt with through the admissions team.  This may result in a student being withdrawn from the University, notwithstanding the stage they are at in their studies.

The Student Recruitment, Selection and Admissions Policy is available here.

Under paragraph 2(l) of Regulation XVII one type of misconduct is defined as "the misuse or unauthorised use of University premises, intellectual property or items of property, including misuse of computers and the communications network or any other breach of the University policy on use of information systems".

Information Technology

Whilst using the University's IT systems, whether that's in halls, in the library or somewhere else on-site or off-site, someone only has permission to do so if they adhere to the University's Acceptable Use Policy.  When someone logs onto the University's systems they'll be able to access this policy.  

The University wants a safe and reliable IT infrastructure that benefits the whole University community.  When that infrastructure becomes misused it can potentially expose the University up to unwanted vulnerabilities. 

On occasion it may be necessary to monitor a student's IT account and share this information with external authorities if a crime may have been committed.  

Previous issues of this nature have included:

• Accessing inappropriate material through the University's internet.
• Storing inappropriate material on the University's storage system.
• Not using a booking system for its intended purpose.

Lecture and course material

A student will be provided with materials for their studies e.g. lecture slides.  A student can use these for teaching and learning purposes.  To avoid academic malpractice, a student should appropriately quote and reference such materials in their own work.  What is also problematic, is when a student shares study materials that aren't their own, with others, such as online.  Unless advised otherwise, students do not have permission to share University intellectual property with others.  This may be viewed as more serious when a student is doing this to gain some sort of benefit e.g. selling the materials.

For students undertaking assessments, the content of the assessment belongs with to the student but with a right to use that content granted to the University.  Content of the assessment does not extend to the assessment question, instructions nor feedback on it.  However, the assessment content can be used by the student as they wish once the examination period has concluded.  Sharing assessment content during an assessment period risks the student being referred for academic malpractice for collusion (i.e. sharing a piece of assessed work and someone else then copying this).  

Rooms and facilities

When a student registers at the University, they are given permission to use some facilities at the University for study purposes.  A number of facilities are open access across a working day/week.  Being a student does not mean that students can access every part of the University and the University may need to restrict access to places e.g. staff-only areas, areas that hold sensitive information or dangerous equipment.  An issue that sometimes arises in halls, is smoking, which can have health and safety implications or trespassing in areas a student is not meant to be.  The scale of the misuse, and the student's approach to it, may affect how the University addresses the matter through the disciplinary process.

It is important to note that staff are able to ask students to temporarily leave an area if the student is believed to be committing, or at risk of committing, misconduct or other good reason.  A good example, is a student causing a disturbance in the library and who is asked to leave; the circumstances have led to a reasonable instruction.  

Students should also carry with them their ID card, and show this, or identify themselves to staff, if there is a basis for this.  For example, Campus Support and Security may need to verify someone's identity if there's a report of tailgating in a halls of residence.  Regulation XVII, 2o) sets out a form of misconduct as "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". 

Case handling

The University's Directorate of IT Services has the ability to deal with breaches of the Acceptable Use Policy.  However, most commonly these, and other areas (aside from strictly halls matters), will be dealt with through the Conduct and Discipline Team in Advice and Response.

Students may participate in sporting activities whether these be directly affiliated to the University or not.  Whatever the setting, or link to the University, students need to be mindful that when they participate in sporting activities they may be seen as ambassadors of the University and so the University expects them to demonstrate good behaviour.

Sporting activities directly affiliated with the University may have responsibilities that sit across different bodies.  Sports teams often have a student executive group that may organise the team, oversee its activities, arrange membership etc.  Sports teams may then be registered with the Students' Union and be supported by the Division of Residential and Sports Services. 

Regardless of the set up, Regulation XVII will apply.  However, the complex organisational structure will mean students, or other individuals witness to, or affected by, potential misbehaviour by students, have various routes in to make a report about alleged misbehaviour.  They can also utilise other reporting mechanisms like the Report and Support platform.

It is acknowledged that issues may arise in the course of playing sport.  Some issues can be addressed in the moment based on the rules of the game.  However, where the rules of the game appear insufficient to address the behaviour, individuals should look at whether more formal reporting options are appropriate.

You can find out more about the expectations on students and the handling of cases in the Sport Code of Conduct. 

Case handling

Where there has likely been misconduct during a sporting activity, or linked to a sport team setting (e.g. a social event), any case referral is likely to be to the Advice and Response Team.  As with any case, the case will first be reviewed to determine the appropriate process/level for handling, whether at Summary or University level.  Key to this will be the seriousness of the issue raised and the possible sanction that may be required.  For example, a Summary Disciplinary Panel can only temporarily remove someone from a team whereas a University Disciplinary Panel can apply a longer term exclusion.

Case disclosure

As with usual casework, the University will share case details only on a need to know basis.  This will likely include the Division of Sport and Residential Services and a student's home academic School.  Members of the SU and a Club's student executive will only be provided with information that is strictly necessary, often limited to confirmation of practical steps taken during the disciplinary process and any sanctions that may affect a student's access to a Club and its activities.

Where an issue crosses into discipline

• Physical assault
• Causing damage to University property
• Causing a game to be discontinued 
• Where serious complaints are raised about a sport, or sport-related, activity

Two definitions of misconduct from Regulation XVII may be applicable to this type of issue:

• 2f) action that did, or could, cause injury or impair safety on University premises; 
• 2t) where a student’s behaviour presents a risk to the safety, safeguarding or welfare of members of the University’s community and/or where their behaviour as a student or their student related activities present such a risk to communities beyond the University. 

The University has a responsibility to its community to ensure that it is a safe place to study, research, and work in and visit.  The number of individuals who access and use the University, whether physically or online, is significant.  This body of people spans not only staff and students, but even members of the public of varying backgrounds in a number of its facilities, like the Aquatics Centre, Manchester Museum and John Rylands Library.  

2f often applies to standalone incidents, which may be of varying degrees of seriousness.  It could mean accessing a roof, blocking a door, entering a restricted area, up to using a laboratory inebriated, starting a fire or tampering with safety equipment.  Some students will receive local health and safety advice whilst at the University if their Programme requires it.  Though students are not expected to be experts in health and safety, and any more professional view of the University will carry greater weight, it is reasonable to expect students to be able to identify issues of objectively clear risks and to act on University advice.  Where risks are less clear, this may be something that is taken into account when handling a case and its outcome.

2t is more when a student's behaviour has identified a potential risk to others from the behaviour itself or in the future.  For example, has the student committed multiple offences indicating a risk that they may do so again in the future, has the student failed to show the potential to learn from a serious incident, have there been multiple affected parties for misconduct of a similar nature.

Case handling

Some cases of 2f within halls of residence may be dealt with at summary level through the Division of Residential and Sport Services.  For example, a student found smoking in their room.

For issues arising elsewhere, or that may appear more serious, then referrals can be made to the Advice and Response Team for further handling.  As with other forms of casework, a decision first needs to be made as to the appropriate level for handling (summary v. University), which will take into account the seriousness of the issues raised and the potential penalties which may be applicable.    

The University has a substantial halls estate that operates across the city, from the centre, to Rusholme to Fallowfield.  A large number of first year undergraduates live in halls (or accommodation linked to halls), but there are fewer numbers of students from more advanced years of study living there.  Accommodation provision varies from catered to non-catered, large flats to smaller flats, amongst other differences.  Flats with have an allocated member of staff from the Residential Life team, to assist with pastoral matters.

It is appreciated that moving into halls, away from established support networks, into a new setting, with new people and being expected to balance studies can be an adjustment.  Its not unusual for there to be friction in a flat and students having to mindful of the boundaries of the University and as set by individuals.  However, though the setting and experience may be novel, having behavioural parameters will not be new to students e.g. behaviour policies are found in other educational institutions. 

The behavioural expectations in halls are still overseen by Regulation XVII.  However, in halls, students are not only agreeing to the Terms and Conditions of Registration to study at the University, but they also agree to the Terms and Conditions of Residence.  The Terms and Conditions of Residence highlight Regulation XVII but also identifies what may be viewed as a behavioural issue in halls.  For example:

• Not smoking in halls.
• Keeping noise to a level that it doesn't cause a disturbance.
• To show respect for others.
• Not to bring bring illegal items into halls.
• To seek permission to hold a party. 

Behavioural expectations will also be set out to students during their halls induction.

Case handling

Behavioural issues can be varied and hit various definitions from section 2 of Regulation XVII.  However, a common definition that may be relied on, because of its link to the Terms and Conditions of Residence (i.e. an Agreement), is:

• "2m) conduct which is a breach of any University Regulation, Policy, Procedure, Code and/or Agreement" 

Most issues in halls can be dealt with at a summary level and the Division of Residential and Sports Services have the ability to take disciplinary action under Regulation XVII.  The Division's disciplinary process will follow the Procedure for Summary Disciplinary Panels.  As cases relate to general misconduct, the penalties will not extend to academic penalties. 

Historically, halls have been users of financial penalties, with any monies collected either going to rectify something e.g. damage, or being put towards resources or financial assistance for students.  Halls already have existing accounts with student residents and so practically it is more straight-forward to add penalties to those accounts.  Often this means that students have until the end of their contract to pay a financial penalty.  Students should feel able to highlight potential financial hardship from a fine so that a disciplinary panel can take this into account.

More recently, for some areas of misconduct, halls have been applying training sessions  students to complete as penalties from disciplinary hearings, including:

• Fire safety
• Respecting your University Community
• Staying Safer (Drugs and Alcohol)

Advice and Response may become involved in halls cases, where something serious has allegedly happened or there student has multiple offences on file, and therefore their case  needs to be referred to the University Disciplinary Panel.  Advice and Response may also accept halls-related cases at a summary level, where there may be benefit to having an area outside halls deal with the case (to avoid a perception of bias) or where there are students involved that do not live in halls.

Can a student have their contract terminated?

Any student who is referred to a University Disciplinary Panel, is at risk of a high level sanction of exclusion or expulsion being imposed.  When a student is no longer a student, or is on a break from study, they are not usually eligible to live in halls.

Summary and University Disciplinary Panels have the ability to issue a penalty that recommends a student is issued with a Notice to Terminate their accommodation agreement (the Terms and Conditions of Residence). 

Either through discipline, or precautionary action like a suspension, a student's contract does not automatically come to an immediate end.  A Notice to Terminate comes with a 20 day notice period for a student to leave.  It can be possible to expedite this if the student hands in their keys sooner, but before they do, a student remains responsible for paying for their room.  The Terms and Conditions of Residence do, however, allow the University to transfer a student on an expediated basis to a new accommodation, which may be utilised if there's an allegation of serious misconduct between flatmates.  

On occasion, students involved in criminal proceedings may find that their bail conditions prevent them from going to halls which the University cannot override.  Similarly, if a student finds themselves in custody, they will remain liable for their accommodation fees until the contract comes to an end.  

Regulation XVII, section 2, provides a number of definitions relating to potential criminal misconduct:

• n) conduct which may constitute a criminal offence where that conduct or the offence:
  • i. takes place on University premises;
  • ii. affects or concerns other members of the University;
  • iii. damages the good name of the University; 
  • iv. itself constitutes misconduct within the provisions of this Regulation;
  • v. is an offence of dishonesty, where the student holds an office of responsibility in the University, a residents’ association, the Students’ Union or the Athletic Union;
  • vi. is such as to render the student unfit to practise any particular profession to which that student’s programme of study leads directly.

Unfortunately, some students may commit criminal offences during their time at the University.  This can come to the University's attention through various means e.g. a student tells us, the police tell us, the University has cause to report an incident to the police etc.

The disclosure of a criminal matter may cause the University to first instigate precautionary considerations.  This could be a meeting with the student to learn more about a case or it could lead straight to a suspension depending on potential risks and information available.  For example, bail conditions, are important to know about, so that the University can consider if these may present challenges to a student being on campus.  

Criminal proceedings can go on for quite some time and the University can't expedite these.  Often it is limited to taking precautionary measures only, and is unable to conduct an internal investigation or refer a case to a disciplinary panel until the criminal proceedings have concluded.

What issues are the University interested in?

A range of criminal matters may be caught by definition 2(n).  However, equally, not all criminal matters are going to be of interest or relevance to the University.  For example, a student convicted of a minor traffic offence is unlikely to need to go through the disciplinary process.  

Serious criminal matters, particularly those affecting closely connected members of the University community or the University itself, which result in onerous sentences, which may appear in the media or which may generate some sort of risk from the student being in study, are all factors that may feed into whether a criminal matter is also pursued through the disciplinary process.

It should be noted that where a student has accepted a caution, pled Guilty or been found Guilty, this will likely satisfy definition 2(n).  However, 2(n) does use the term 'may' and works to the balance of probabilities, meaning the University has a lower threshold for finding a breach of 2(n) if needed.

Where a student is found Not Guilty by a court, this means that an individual has been unable to convict beyond reasonable doubt i.e. a reasonable doubt found to exist.  What the level of doubt is is often unclear.  A Not Guilty outcome does not prevent the University from considering allegations through its internal processes and the University only needs to satisfy itself to the balance of probabilities.  However, in these circumstances, it may be safer to look at whether an individual has breached alternative definitions to 2(n).

Case handling

Where there has been a alleged breached of 2(n) it is recommended that cases be referred to the Advice and Response Team.  There will be a review of the appropriate level of handling, whether this be at Summary or University level, taking into account the seriousness of the case and any penalties that may be applicable.  

Where a student is found by a disciplinary panel to have breached 2(n) the Disciplinary Panel can take account of any sentence imposed by the court when determining a proportionate penalty.  For example, a Disciplinary Panel may exclude financial penalties if a student has received a fine or training or tasks for the University community if a student is engaged with the Probation Service.  

Drugs and alcohol

The University will attempt to apply a supportive, rather than punitive, approach aka harm reduction approach, where students have been found to use substances, like drugs, or alcohol (to a harmful extent).  This is set out in the Policy on the Harmful Use of Substances or Alcohol by Students.  Where students consume drugs and alcohol, the University wants them to do this in a safe way, meaning they're familiar with the risks of doing so and where they can go to for support. 

The Policy does not stop the University from taking disciplinary action where students are found to have used drugs or alcohol, and going through the disciplinary process may be a formal way to communicate expectations and support avenues in these areas to students.  A potential penalty from the disciplinary process could be training, through the completion of the Staying safe course.

One of the more serious areas is where a student is found to be supplying substances to others, as this puts a wider pool of individuals at risk.

Paragraph 3.2.6 of the Guidance on Applying Student Disciplinary Penalties also states:

"The University has a Policy on the Harmful Use of Substances or Alcohol by Students.  This may be a factor in whether a case is referred or not, but it does not rule out disciplinary action being taken where misconduct is identified.  Commonly, where misconduct is found to exist, individuals need to take responsibility for how they act even if this was out of character due to the influence of substances or alcohol i.e. the influence of substances or alcohol does not lessen the behavioural expectations of students.  For example, in a case of sexual misconduct, a student cannot mitigate a failure to obtain consent due to substance or alcohol impairment, or in a case of property damage, a student cannot reply on impairment as an excuse for how they acted.  However, a Disciplinary Panel should be empathetic towards impairments of a significant nature, such as addiction, which may be a mitigating factor, and provide welfare information to enable the student to access support."

Section 2 of Regulation XVII (Conduct and Discipline of Students) is prefaced with the statement, "Misconduct at the University will not extend to matters concerning freedom of speech, expression and academic enquiry where they are exercised in a lawful, peaceful and reasonable manner."

Every individual at the University will hold different views on a variety of subjects.  As individuals we're not all the same.  Some of those views may coalesce and be shared, others may be completely opposite.  What is important is that we recognise this, and make allowances to disagree respectfully and constructively. 

In itself, someone being caused offence and upset is not a basis for taking disciplinary action.  Whilst these may be genuine feelings, the University needs to balance how someone may feel personally with the ability of someone else to hold and voice genuinely held views and opinions.  What is important is the context in how those views and opinions are expressed, the manner and actions of expression and whether what was expressed was objectively reasonable.

Individuals should be mindful of their audience as well, particularly when talking about sensitive topics.  Though it may not be immediately obvious, certain views may affect some people more than others.  Someone may have been through a difficult experience and speaking about a particular topic could be triggering.  People should feel able to set their personal boundaries e.g. 'I don't want to talk about this because...', after which it may then be more reasonable to expect another person to respect them.

For example

If a group of people are talking about the benefits of immigration and someone counters those benefits with anti-immigration views, this is to be reasonably expected, even if one set of views may be more polarised than the other.  However, if someone started shouting anti-immigration stereotypes in a lecture on an unrelated subject, then this may cross the line into misconduct.  This is because taking the components together, i.e. the use of stereotypes, the manner of expression being to shout and the setting of a lecture being distant from the topic of opinion, may be viewed objectively as unreasonable and risks being viewed as other forms of misconduct e.g. disruptive behaviour, harassment etc.

The University community is no stranger to sensitive topics that may evoke different views.  In recent years, the rent in halls of residence (Rent Strike), Pro-Life and the Israel-Gaza conflict have all been topics that have caused the expression of different opinions.

Protests

At different point in time, University campuses across the world will experience some form of protest action.  Protest can be a legitimate expression of views, sometimes arising from a perceived benefit to conveying those views through direct action, compared to other alternative routes for feedback.

Actions linked to protests at the University of Manchester have included occupations, where individuals remain in a room, building or area, often refusing to leave until their views have been heard.

These views articulated through protests may be different between the people involved in them compared to other individuals at the University.  Sometimes there are topics that the University as an institution is unable to reach a position on.

Disciplinary panels have been tasked with considering misconduct linked to protests.  This is not students being punished for holding views, rather the manner of expression and the effect this had.  In other words, was misconduct committed during a protest.  

The University will take a measured approach to such cases, often starting with an advisory notice to people involved.  Consideration to whether a case moves into more formal stages of the disciplinary process may include:

• The level of disruption e.g. how long has it one on for, what has the impact been on staff or students (e.g. cancelled lectures, exams), the resourcing required to monitor the protests (e.g. has it led to a sizeable diversion of Campus Support and Security).
• Whether any damage has been caused.
• Have any health and safety issues arisen.  For example, blocking fire doors, climbing onto roofs, smoking indoors etc.  If protests take place, the University wants them to be safe.  A student is unable to override a professional view on safety from the University and replace it with their own.
• Whether the individual been formally warned before about their behaviour i.e. repeat offences.
• Someone exhibiting harassment towards others.
• When the behaviour potentially extends to criminality.

Case handling

Cases of this nature will likely be investigated by the Advice and Response Team, with potential onwards referral to a disciplinary panel for further action.  The level of panel will be considered based on the circumstances established through the investigation.  Cases with high complexity, or that involve multiple individuals, may lead to cases going to a University Disciplinary Panel.  Regardless of the level, where a panel makes a finding against a student, as usual they can then consider any mitigating or aggravating factors to identify a proportionate penalty.  

Though referrals will be made and considered on an individual basis, where there are multiple individuals involved a panel may take the position that those individuals share some collective responsibility for aspects of the misconduct.  This approach is not too dissimilar from cases of issues in flats, noise abatement and groupwork malpractice.  Consistency of outcome, balanced against individual circumstances, will factor into any decisions reached on penalties.