Academic Misconduct Procedures

2.1 The responsible officer has the authority to investigate academic misconduct and take action in accordance with these Procedures and will be one of a:

1. Head of School, or equivalent;
2. Executive Dean;
3. Provost

2.2 Authority may be exercised by a person(s) designated by the relevant responsible officer to act on their behalf for the purpose of these Procedures.

3.1 The University may use text matching software or other tools to assist in identifying cases of academic misconduct, provided that students are notified in the Unit Outline of the availability of self-evaluation tools and the intended use of software or tools in the detection of breaches.

3.2 In any discussions or interviews in which a student participates during any process under the Academic Integrity and Misconduct Policy or these Procedures, the student may be accompanied by one support person, other than a person with a qualification in law. A support person:

1. may not be a person who was involved in, associated with, or alleged to have been involved in or associated with, the subject matter of the academic misconduct allegation; and
2. may only make submissions on behalf of the student if invited to do so by the responsible officer dealing with the matter.

3.3 In any case in which a responsible officer has any verbal communication with a student regarding a matter arising under the Academic Integrity and Misconduct Policy and/or these Procedures, that officer will make a written note of such communication and retain it within an appropriate secure file(s).

3.4 A student may seek confidential, independent advice from the Student Advocacy Service at any stage.

Where any member of staff, other than a Lecturer in Charge, detects or is made aware of the possible occurrence of academic misconduct, the staff member will report the matter:

1. in the case of detection by a member of academic staff, to the Lecturer in Charge of the unit;
2. in the case of detection by any other member of staff, to the staff member’s supervisor who must refer the matter to the Lecturer in Charge.

5.1 Where a Lecturer in Charge detects or is made aware of the possible occurrence of academic misconduct, within 10-working days they will:

1. communicate with the student by email or in person to further investigate the matter; and
2. advise the Head of School, or equivalent.

5.2 If, following communication with the student, the Lecturer in Charge is satisfied that the student did not act inappropriately or dishonestly, they should advise the student and the Head of School accordingly.

5.3 If the Lecturer in Charge has sufficient evidence to conclude that the student has acted inappropriately or dishonestly, within 10-working days of the determination they must:

1. contact the Enrolments and Scholarships section, using the prescribed process to obtain information from the student’s record and/or the central register of academic misconduct regarding any findings or written warnings related to previous occurrences of academic misconduct;
2. determine whether the alleged academic misconduct is minor, moderate or major under section 7 of the Academic Integrity and Misconduct Policy; and
3. take the relevant action prescribed under sections 6 to 8 of these procedures.

6.1 Where a Lecturer in Charge determines under section 5.3 that the current breach is minor, they must apply the penalty detailed in section 7.5 of the Policy.

6.2 The written warning should include advice that an investigation of further possible occurrences of academic misconduct will take into consideration any previous warning that has been issued. A copy of the warning letter should be:

1. signed and dated by the Lecturer in Charge;
2. retained by both the student and the Lecturer in Charge;
3. recorded on the central register of academic misconduct; and
4. forwarded by the Lecturer in Charge to the relevant Team Leader, AskACU for addition to the student’s personal file and to the Head of School, or equivalent, for information.

7.1 Where a Lecturer in Charge determines under section 5.3 (b) that the alleged breach is moderate or major, they must refer any matter to the Head of School, or equivalent.

7.2 The Lecturer in Charge must provide a report on investigations undertaken and all relevant materials to the Head of School, or equivalent, which includes:

1. the examination paper or work submitted by the student for assessment; and
2. evidence of the basis on which the allegation is based, for example:
   1. the Examination Supervisor’s report and any associated evidence; or
   2. reference to and preferably copies of other resources which are considered to have been plagiarised; (a printout from an internet site is appropriate, in case that site is subsequently changed); or
   3. evidence of collusion or recycling; or
   4. evidence from text matching software or other detection tools; or
   5. any explanations and/or admissions that the student may make with respect to the relevant behaviour.
3. information about any other written warnings related to previous occurrences of academic misconduct from the student’s personal file or the central register of academic misconduct.

7.3 Where the Head of School determines that the alleged breach is major, they must refer the matter to the Executive Dean.

9.1 The responsible officer to whom any allegation of academic dishonesty has been reported will, within 10 working days of receiving the allegation, initiate such investigations as considered appropriate.

9.2 If the responsible officer considers that the evidence does not support the allegation, the student and the Lecturer in Charge, other relevant officers and any other complainant will be advised accordingly and no further action will be taken.

9.3 If the responsible officer considers that the allegation has substance, they must notify the student in writing of the nature of the allegation/s and provide the student with:

1. a copy of, or an opportunity to inspect, documentation relevant to the alleged academic misconduct;
2. a link to the Academic Integrity and Misconduct Policy and these Procedures; and
3. the opportunity to prepare and submit a written response which must be lodged within 10 working days of the notification of alleged academic misconduct.

9.4 The responsible officer may also:

1. request the student to attend an interview, giving at least five working days' written notice of the date, time and place of the interview and the option to be accompanied by a support person under Section 3.2; or
2. provide the student with the opportunity to request an interview to discuss the allegation.

9.5 The responsible officer will make a decision on the matter within 10 working days from the receipt of a response from the student, or, if no response is received, the due date for a response from the student.

10.1 The following factors will be taken into account in determining action to be taken and/or penalty to be imposed:

1. the form of the academic misconduct as described in section 7.1 of the Academic Integrity and Misconduct Policy;
2. the extent of the academic misconduct or the amount or proportion of assessment task or work that is not the student’s own and the extent to which the assessment process is compromised;
3. the experience of the student or the extent to which the student should be aware of appropriate behaviour and of the seriousness of their actions;
4. any explanations and mitigating circumstances provided by the student; and
5. any previous record of academic misconduct on the part of the student.

11.1 Following investigation of the allegation, a Head of School, or equivalent, may take one or more of the following actions:

1. dismiss the case; or
2. apply any penalty that may be imposed by a Head of School, or equivalent under section 7.5 (a)-(i) of the Academic Integrity and Misconduct Policy; or
3. the Head of School, or equivalent, considers that the penalties that can be imposed under section 7.5 (a)-(i) of the Academic Integrity and Misconduct Policy are insufficient to deal with the matter.

11.2 A Head of School or equivalent must refer the matter to the Executive Dean where:

1. the academic misconduct is deemed to be major; or
2. the student has been found to have breached the Academic Integrity and Misconduct Policy on two prior occasions.

11.3 In the event of an allegation of academic misconduct being referred by a Head of School, or equivalent, to the relevant Executive Dean, the Executive Dean will undertake such further investigation of the case as is considered appropriate.

11.4 Following consideration of the case the Executive Dean may take one or more of the following actions:

1. dismiss the case; or
2. apply any penalty that may be imposed by an Executive Dean under section 7.6 (a)-(k) of the Academic Integrity and Misconduct Policy; or
3. refer the matter to the Provost if the Executive Dean considers that the penalties that can be imposed under section 7.6 (a)-(k) of the Academic Integrity and Misconduct Policy are insufficient to deal with the matter.

11.5 In the event of an allegation of academic misconduct being referred by an Executive Dean to the Provost, the Provost will undertake such further investigation of the case as is considered appropriate.

11.6 Following consideration of the case the Provost may take one or more of the following actions:

1. dismiss the case; or
2. apply any penalty that may be imposed by the Provost under section 7.6 (a)-(m) of the Academic Integrity and Misconduct Policy; or
3. refer the matter to a Discipline Committee under the Student Conduct and Discipline Policy.

12.1 Following determination of a case by a Head of School, or equivalent, an Executive Dean or the Provost, the relevant officer will advise the student in writing of:

1. the process undertaken during the investigation;
2. the decision reached;
3. the reasons for the decision; and
4. the available avenues of appeal.

12.2 A copy of the advice to the student will be provided to all relevant officers which may include the Executive Dean, the Head(s) of School (or equivalent), the Course Coordinator, the Lecturer in Charge and the relevant Team Leader, AskACU.

12.3 In cases where there has been proven academic misconduct, the relevant Team Leader, AskACU will upload the report on the student’s personal file and the central register of academic misconduct.