33.13  The Student Contract outlines the relationship between the University and all of its students. It links to relevant student regulations including this Code.

33.14  Where there are concerns that a student’s conduct may be being affected by their mental or physical health, this will normally be considered initially under the Fitness to Study Procedure.[3]

33.15  Students registered on certain professional programmes are subject to the Fitness to Practise Procedure.[4] If a School Fitness to Practise Officer, while investigating a Fitness to Practise concern, believes that this Code may apply, they will advise the Head of Student Codes in writing at student-conduct@glasgow.ac.uk. The Fitness to Practise Officer and the Head of Student Codes will decide how to proceed. Misconduct within a professional context will normally be considered under the Fitness to Practise Procedure. Misconduct which could also be perpetrated by students on non-professional programmes will normally be considered under this Code. The University may consider the case under both procedures if it believes that both are relevant.

33.16  Other regulations and policies exist separately that cover, for example, the use of IT facilities, Halls of Residence, and so on. Minor breaches of those regulations may be dealt with solely under those policies, but major breaches may be considered under this Code. These regulations and policies include:

Registration and Fee Regulations
Equality and Diversity Policy
Dignity at Work and Study Policy and Procedure
Personal Relationships Policy
Regulations and Code of Conduct for the Use of ICT Facilities in the University of Glasgow
Policy Statement on Students’ Recording of Lectures
Plagiarism Statement
Code of Practice on Unacceptable Behaviour
Code of Policy and Procedures for Investigating Allegations of Misconduct in Research
No Smoking Policy Statement
Statement on Alcohol, Drugs and Substance Misuse
Accommodation Policies and Procedures

33.17  The Glasgow University Student Unions,[5] the Student Representatives’ Council and the Glasgow University Sports Association are each constitutionally separate from the University of Glasgow and may also have their own conduct regulations.

a)  Cheating or gaining an unfair advantage in an assessment, or attempting to do so, or helping another student to do so. This includes:

• plagiarism from published or online materials, course materials, other students’ work, or one’s own work previously submitted for assessment at this or another institution;
• purchasing work or having it produced by any other person or commercial service;
• providing or sharing one’s own work with another student to use for assessment, or producing work for another student, or collaboration in the preparation of an assessment unless explicitly permitted (such as with groupwork assignments);

• bringing material or items into an examination that are not permitted, or behaving in a manner that could potentially cause the examination to be compromised:
• For in person examinations held on campus this could include but is not limited to mobile phones or tablets, smart watches, notes, unauthorised types of calculator, unauthorised types of dictionaries, or annotations on any material or item and is regardless of whether these are brought intentionally or are used during the examination.
• For online examinations this relates to using materials or devices that are not permitted for online examinations. Schools and Research Institutes will advise students in advance about specific instructions relating to online examinations.

b)  Engaging in misconduct in research.[6]

c)  Academic Behaviour that is likely to render a student unfit to practise the profession to which their degree leads.[4]

d)  Engaging in criminal activity. It is a student’s duty to inform the University if charged with a criminal offence.

e)  Disrupting, or interfering with, any academic, administrative, sporting, social, cultural or other University activity.

f)   Preventing, hindering or obstructing any member of the University from carrying out their duties or activities.

g)  Behaving in a physically disorderly, threatening, offensive, indecent or violent manner or inciting others to do so.

h)   Any form of sexual misconduct.

i)  Using threatening, offensive or indecent language, whether expressed orally, in writing, or electronically, including on social media.[7]

j)  Behaving in an anti-social way,[8] including in University residences or in the wider community, or in a way that risks the health, safety or welfare of any person, or could cause injury.

k)  Discriminating against any person on grounds such as age, disability, gender, gender identity, political or religious beliefs, race, ethnic or national origin, sexual orientation, or socio-economic background.

l)  Harassing, bullying or committing hate crimes[9] against any person including on grounds such as age, disability, gender, gender identity, political or religious beliefs, race, ethnic or national origin, sexual orientation, or socio-economic background.[10]

m)  Behaving dishonestly by engaging in or facilitating fraud, deception, misrepresentation, or personation (including the falsification or misuse of the University name, documents, or logo).

n)  Damaging or vandalising University property or the property of any person.

o)  Stealing or misappropriating University property (including funds) or the property of any person.

p)  Misusing or making unauthorised use of University premises or property, including misusing IT facilities or safety equipment.

q)  Deliberately doing, or failing to do, anything that thereby causes the University to be in breach of a statutory obligation.

r)  Possessing, using or supplying a controlled drug as defined by the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (as amended from time to time).

s)  The unlawful possession, use or supply of an offensive weapon.

t)  Making false, frivolous, malicious or vexatious complaints (without removing the right to make complaints and raise concerns through formal procedures).

u)  Conduct that may harm the University’s reputation.

v)  Behaviour that is likely to render a student unfit to practise the profession to which their degree leads.

w) Failing to comply with any previously imposed sanction under this Code.

33.21  The University recognises that some allegations of misconduct are extremely distressing for the person alleged to have breached conduct regulations (‘the Responding Student’) and potentially for the person making the allegation. In serious cases, a Student Liaison Officer will be assigned to the Responding Student. If the person making the allegation is also a Glasgow University student (‘the Reporting Student’), in serious cases a separate Student Liaison Officer will be assigned to them. The Student Liaison Officer will be assigned as a result of the Risk Assessment process described in §33.28 onwards below.

33.22  The Student Liaison Officers will be the main point of contact for the Reporting Student and Responding Student throughout the conduct process. They will ensure that both students understand the conduct process and are kept well informed about progress and they will help both students to make informed decisions.

33.36  Allegations of academic or non-academic misconduct can be submitted by any Glasgow University student or staff member and this may be done via a student representative or other staff member. Allegations of misconduct may also be made by members of the public. Reports should be made in writing to the Head of Student Codes at student-conduct@glasgow.ac.uk who will refer the allegation to the Senior Senate Assessor for allegations of academic misconduct, or to an Investigating Officer for allegations of non-academic misconduct.

33.37  The University will not normally take action under this Code in response to an anonymous allegation of misconduct. In some cases, where appropriate and where possible, the identity of a Reporting Individual will not be disclosed to the Responding Student or any party involved in the decision-making under this Code. It will be at the discretion of Head of Student Codes as to whether the identity of the Reporting Individual will be anonymised within the procedure of this Code. In exercising this discretion, factors that may be taken into account include the seriousness of the allegation, the credibility of the allegation, the likelihood of being able to conduct a full investigation and the reason(s) given by the Reporting Individual for requesting anonymity. 

33.38  Conduct procedures will proceed without undue delay and will not normally take more than 90 calendar days from the start of the investigation into an allegation to the conclusion of any appeal meeting. Extensions to this timescale may be required if, for example, the case is particularly complex, there is a related criminal investigation or prosecution, because of delays caused by the Reporting Individual or the Responding Student, or other circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the University. All parties will be informed of likely timescales and updated where delays are necessary.

33.39  The University will treat allegations of misconduct, and sanctions applied, confidentially except where it is considered by the University to be necessary to share information within the University or with external organisations to enable the University to:

a)  investigate the allegation;

b)  report or assist in the investigation of a crime;

c)  fulfil its safeguarding duties; and/or

d)  comply with its legal and/or contractual obligations (for example, to regulators or professional bodies).

Details of misconduct and sanctions will not be published on the student’s degree transcript (Higher Education Achievement Report) and will not normally be divulged in references unless specifically requested by the individual or organisation requesting the reference.

The Student Liaison Officer (see §33.21 - §33.22 above) will discuss any potential sharing of information with the Responding Student or Reporting Individual in advance. All attendees will be reminded that the details of meetings under this Code should be treated as confidential.

33.40  Details of decisions of the Senate Assessors, the Decision Maker for non-academic misconduct, and Conduct and Appeal Committees are held confidentially in Academic Services. Details of decisions, including sanctions, will be circulated to relevant University or Student Union, SRC or GUSA officers on a need-to-know basis to implement the decisions.

33.41  Once a decision has been reached on the case, and if the Reporting Individual is a student or member of staff, they will normally receive a written notification that the matter was dealt with under the University Code of Student Conduct and noting whether the Responding Student was found to have committed misconduct.

33.42  The standard of proof at each stage of the procedures under this Code will be “on the balance of probabilities” (rather than “beyond reasonable doubt”). This means that, for each event or incident, the Decision Maker must be satisfied, on the evidence available, that it is more likely than not that the event or incident occurred.

33.43  All individuals involved in a procedure under this Code, including the Responding Student and their companion (if any), must communicate and act respectfully and reasonably and in accordance with this Code and with the University’s Code of Practice on Unacceptable Behaviour.[11] Staff with responsibilities under this Code may halt proceedings and refer to the Head of Student Codes if they consider that an individual has failed to comply with this expectation. Under these circumstances, the Clerk of Senate has the authority to exclude any individual from any part of the procedures under this Code with the advice of the Head of Student Codes.

33.44  Responding Students, Reporting Individuals and witnesses (if they are members of staff or Glasgow University students) are entitled to be accompanied to meetings under this Code by a family member, a fellow student or friend, an Adviser from the Students’ Representative Council (SRC) Advice Centre, or a member of University staff, provided that the accompanying individual is not also a witness. Reporting Individuals and witnesses who are not members of staff or Glasgow University students are entitled to be accompanied to meetings by a family member or friend, provided that the accompanying individual is not also a witness. The role of the accompanying individual is to provide moral support and guidance to the person they are accompanying to the meeting. The accompanying individual shall not disrupt the proper conduct of the meeting.

33.45  The Responding Student will normally be expected to speak for themselves.

33.46  With the permission of the Senate Assessor, Investigating Officer, Decision Maker, or Convener of a Conduct Committee or Appeal Meeting, as appropriate, the Responding Student may be represented by the person accompanying them and the person may speak on their behalf. Permission must be requested in advance and reasons given to explain why the Responding Student requires a representative to speak for them.

33.47  The Responding Student must inform the Head of Student Codes (student-conduct@glasgow.ac.uk) at least five working days[12] before the relevant meeting of the name of any person who may attend to accompany or represent them.

33.48  If the Responding Student wishes to be accompanied or represented by a person not listed in §33.44 above, the student must make a request in writing to the Head of Student Codes (student-conduct@glasgow.ac.uk) at least five working days[12] before the meeting. The Head of Student Codes will consult the Director of Academic Services or their nominee before deciding whether to permit such alternative support or representation.

33.49  If a Responding Student does not attend a meeting scheduled under this Code on the scheduled date and has not advised of medical or other grounds that prevent attendance, the matter may be dealt with in the student’s absence if the student has received the stated period of notice of the meeting. If the allegation is found to be established, an appropriate sanction will be applied and the student will be notified of the outcome in writing.

33.50  Where an allegation is made against more than one Responding Student for the same offence, all of the Responding Students will be given an equal opportunity to respond. The Head of Student Codes will advise on whether the Responding Students should be interviewed together or separately. Responding Students will have the opportunity to speak with the Senate Assessor(s), Investigating Officer and/or Senate Student Conduct Committee privately if there are confidential or sensitive matters that they wish to raise. Decisions on outcomes will be made for each Responding Student individually.

33.51  The Senate Assessors or the Investigating Officer for non-academic misconduct shall meet with a Responding Student either in person or virtually (e.g., online) or may accept a written statement from the Responding Student instead of meeting with them. The written statement shall be considered in the same way as an oral statement.

33.52  In exceptional circumstances, for example where the Responding Student is overseas or unwell, or the parties are otherwise prevented from meeting physically, Conduct Committee and Appeal meetings may take place online if agreed by the Convener, with the advice of the Head of Student Codes.

33.53  All meetings under this Code will include at least two representatives from the University unless there are exceptional circumstances and all parties agree that the meeting may proceed with only one University officer in attendance.

33.54  A written record of the meetings with Senate Assessors and of Conduct and Appeal Committee meetings will normally be shared with the Responding Student within 10 working days[12] of the meeting. Reports of Investigating Officers for non-academic misconduct will normally be shared with the Responding Student within 10 working days of the outcome agreed by the Decision Maker for non-academic misconduct.

33.55  Academic Services keeps records of student conduct correspondence, risk assessments and meetings. These records are kept for at least six academic sessions after the incident under investigation, and for the remaining duration of the student’s registration with the University if this is longer.

33.56  Any unauthorised electronic recording of meetings held under this Code is expressly forbidden by the University. Electronic recordings may be authorised in some circumstances, e.g., as a reasonable adjustment relating to disability.

33.57  Academic Services will prepare the following annual reports for Senate:

a)  an Annual Report stating the number and types of misconduct reported, and the outcomes; and

b)  an Annual Report stating the number and types of appeals heard by the Conduct Appeal Committees.

33.58  A Responding Student cannot normally be considered twice in respect of the same allegation under this Code. Exceptionally, the Clerk of Senate may allow this if new substantive evidence becomes available. The factors in making the decision to consider a case again will include the time elapsed, the severity of the offence, the impact on the student(s) concerned and any possible impact on fitness to study or fitness to practise.

33.59  At least 10 working days[12] before a Conduct Committee or Appeal Committee meeting, the Clerk of the Committee will send the Responding Student notice of the meeting and send them the papers for the meeting including details of the allegation (in the case of Conduct Committees) to give the student reasonable time to prepare.

33.60  The Committee may accept a written statement from the Responding Student as evidence instead of the Responding Student or their representative attending the Committee meeting.

33.61  The Committee will rely only on evidence, presented verbally or in writing, at the meeting in making their decision.

33.62  The Committee may adjourn the meeting and delay making a decision where it is decided that further investigation into the allegation(s) is needed.

33.63  If the members of the Committee cannot agree on an outcome, the decision will be that of the majority of its members. The Convener will have a casting vote if there is not a majority view.

33.64  The Convener of each Committee may take such steps as they consider necessary to support the wellbeing and participation of the Responding Student and any witness. This may include, amongst other things, requiring that all questioning be conducted through the Convener; the use of technology or physical barriers to remove direct line of sight between the Responding Student and a witness; and seeking to ensure that questioning by any party is appropriate. In exceptional circumstances, the Convener may not permit the Responding Student and/or their representative to question a witness directly where there are concerns for their wellbeing. The arrangements to support wellbeing will normally be agreed in advance of the meeting and all attendees will be notified in advance. Where required, the Student Liaison Officer will discuss the arrangements for safeguarding with the Responding and/or Reporting Student.

33.65  The Senate shall appoint a minimum of five Senate Assessors for Student Academic Conduct (‘the Senate Assessors’), to consider cases and take disciplinary action. The Senate Assessors take the role for four years, and the Senate appoints a Senior Senate Assessor from amongst the Senate Assessors. None of the Senate Assessors are members of the Senate Student Academic Conduct Committee. The duties of the Senior Senate Assessor can be performed by any of the Senate Assessors, if required.

33.66  If the Responding Student admits to the alleged academic misconduct and the Head of Student Codes feels that a mutually agreed resolution may be possible, then the academic misconduct may be resolved by mutual agreement.

33.67  The Responding Student will be informed of the allegation in writing, given a reasonable opportunity to respond, and notified of a potential sanction in writing. If the Responding Student agrees, the sanction will be confirmed in writing by the Senate Assessors. Examples of mutually agreed sanctions that may be applied are outlined in Annex B.

33.68  Cases of suspected plagiarism concerning undergraduate non-honours students that are first offences, are not associated with formal on-campus examinations, and are not considered to be extensive will be dealt with by the Head of School or Director of Research Institute or their nominee (hereinafter referred to as Head of School) under the University’s Plagiarism Statement. All other cases will be considered under this Code.

Allegation that a student has engaged in academic misconduct

33.69  Before interviewing a Responding Student accused of academic misconduct, the Senate Assessors are entitled to carry out appropriate investigation into the allegation(s) based on the evidence provided by the Reporting Individual and the Responding Student. This might include interviews with the person who reported the allegation(s) and with other students and staff. At least two Senate Assessors will undertake the investigation and they will be advised and assisted by members of Academic Services as appropriate. The Senate Assessors will have had no previous involvement in the case. The Senate Assessors may decide, after investigation, not to take the matter further or to interview the Responding Student using the Procedure at Level 1.

33.70  If the allegation(s) is considered to be more serious (having regard to the examples given in Annex B), the Senior Senate Assessor can decide with another Senate Assessor to refer the case directly to Level 2 for a full meeting of the Senate Student Academic Conduct Committee.

Procedure at Level 1

33.71  The Responding Student will normally be required to attend a meeting with two Senate Assessors to respond to the allegation(s), to admit or deny responsibility and, if they admit responsibility, to explain their behaviour or offer information that may be relevant in deciding a sanction.

33.72  The Responding Student will be given notice (normally seven days) of the meeting and provided with the details of the allegation and a copy of the Conduct procedures in advance. The student will also be told how to access advice and support, for example from the SRC Advice Centre.

Outcome at Level 1

33.73  At the conclusion of the meeting the Senate Assessors may:

a)  dismiss the allegation of misconduct and advise that no further action should be taken;

b)  carry out further investigation as permitted in §33.69;

c)  impose a sanction in accordance with Annex B;

d)  refer the matter to the Senate Student Academic Conduct Committee.

33.74  The relevant School will be informed by Academic Services of any academic sanction imposed by the Senate Assessors. The School will inform the Board of Examiners, which cannot review or change the sanction imposed by the Senate Assessors.

33.75  The Senate Assessors will normally tell the Responding Student the outcome of the interview at the end of the meeting, and the outcome will normally be confirmed in writing within 10 working days.[12] This letter will outline the right to and timeline for appeal and how to access advice and support if needed.

33.76  The Responding Student has the right of appeal against the decision of the Senate Assessors including any sanction imposed. The procedures are set out under §33.106 - §33.118.

Misconduct which is more serious

33.77  The Senate Assessors at Level 1 shall refer the matter to the Senate Student Academic Conduct Committee under Level 2 of this Code if they decide that the Responding Student has committed misconduct which (having regard to the examples given in Annex B), may be more serious than can be considered at Level 1.

33.78  The Senate Student Academic Conduct Committee (‘the Committee’) is appointed by the Senate. The Committee membership is:

• Convener (appointed by Senate);
• College representatives (members of or nominated by Senate);
• Student member (the President of the Students' Representative Council or another SRC sabbatical officer).

At least three members of the Committee must be present at any meeting, including the Convener and at least one College member. Reasonable steps will be taken to include a student member on the Committee. Other staff members may be co-opted where appropriate. No member of the Committee will have had direct or previous involvement with the Responding Student or work directly within the area where any alleged misconduct took place.

33.79  The Senate Assessors will give the Committee a written report of the case, and a copy will be sent to the Responding Student before the meeting.

33.80  Other persons may attend meetings of the Committee, for example as witnesses or advisers, with the Convener’s permission. The Head of Student Codes must be notified of any witnesses or advisers who may attend at least five working days[12] before the meeting, at student-conduct@glasgow.ac.uk.

33.81  At the hearing:

a)  The Convener of the Committee will introduce all present, confirm whether the Responding Student will be represented by another person, explain the purpose of the meeting and explain any measures in place to protect the wellbeing of the Responding Student and any witnesses (such as those referred to in §33.64). The Convener may impose time limits on presentations and statements and will remind all attendees that the details of the meeting should be treated as confidential.

b)  The Senate Assessor will present the allegation(s) against the Responding Student. The Senate Assessor will present the findings of any investigation calling witnesses as appropriate.

c)  The Responding Student (or representative) will be invited to respond to the allegation(s) presented by the Senate Assessor and may call witnesses, as appropriate. The Responding Student will be invited to state whether they admit or deny the allegation(s).

d)  The Committee may ask questions of the Responding Student, their representative or supporter, the Senate Assessor and any witnesses.[13]

e)  Through the Convener, the Responding Student (or their representative) may ask questions of the Senate Assessor and witnesses, subject to any alternative arrangements agreed as outlined in §33.64.

f)  Through the Convener, the Senate Assessor may ask questions of the Responding Student and witnesses.

g)  The Committee may at any time seek additional evidence or information from other parties at the meeting.

h)  The Convener will invite the Senate Assessor and the Responding Student (or their representative) to sum up.

i)  If the Responding Student admits the allegation(s) they will be invited to give an explanation of the misconduct and advise the Committee of any information that might be relevant in deciding on a sanction.

j)  If the Responding Student denies the allegation(s), the Committee will decide, on the balance of probabilities, whether the Responding Student has committed the alleged misconduct.

33.82  If the Committee decides that the Responding Student has committed misconduct, they will, in a private meeting, agree on the appropriate sanction in accordance with Annex B.

33.83  The decision of the Committee is normally given verbally at the end of the meeting. The Responding Student will normally be notified of the Committee’s decision formally within 10 working days[12] of the meeting. This letter will outline the right to and timeline for appeal and how to access advice and support if needed.

33.84  The Responding Student has the right of appeal against the decision of the Committee including any sanction imposed. The procedures are set out under §33.106 - §33.118.

33.85  If the Responding Student admits to the alleged misconduct and the Head of Student Codes feels that a mutually agreed resolution may be possible, then the misconduct may be resolved by mutual agreement without any investigation under this Code.

33.86  The Responding Student will be informed of the allegation in writing, given a reasonable opportunity to respond, and notified of a potential sanction in writing. If the Responding Student agrees, the sanction will be confirmed in writing by the Head of Student Codes. Examples of mutually agreed sanctions are outlined in Annex B.

33.87  Local resolution of minor non-academic misconduct may take place in the residences and in relation to ICT facilities with more serious misconduct issues referred to this Code. The Wardens, the Head of Student Engagement, the Head of Accommodation Operations, and the Director of IT have the authority to take actions under local regulations. See §33.13 - §33.17.

Investigating Officers

33.88  The University will appoint an Investigating Officer to consider cases of non-academic misconduct. The Investigating Officer will have had no previous involvement in the case.

33.89  The Investigating Officer will normally meet with the Responding Student to allow them to respond to the allegation, to admit to or deny responsibility and, if they admit responsibility, to explain their behaviour or offer information that may be relevant in deciding a sanction.

33.90  The Responding Student will be given notice of the meeting and be provided with the details of the allegation and a copy of this Code in advance. The Responding Student will also be told how to access advice and support, for example from the SRC Advice Centre.

33.91  The Investigating Officer will normally also meet with the person making the allegation and may meet with other students or staff and consider documents or other evidence relevant to the case.

33.92  The University does not have legal investigatory powers and can only investigate whether there has been a breach of this Code. A University investigation is not a substitute for a police investigation.

33.93  The Investigating Officer will write a report which outlines the process followed, the information gathered in their investigation and their conclusions.

Level 1 – Summary Decision

33.94  The Investigating Officer will refer their report to the Decision Maker who will be the Director of Academic Services or their nominee. The Decision Maker may:

a)  dismiss the allegation of misconduct and advise that no further action should be taken;

b)  request further investigation as permitted in §33.88 - §33.93;

c)  impose a sanction in accordance with Annex B; or

d)  refer the matter to the Senate Student Non-Academic Conduct Committee.

If the Decision Maker’s decision is not in line with the conclusions of the Investigating Officer, they will consult with an alternate Decision Maker before reaching their final decision.

33.95  The Responding Student will be sent written notification of the outcome which will comprise the report of the Investigating Officer, together with any additional deliberations, reasoning and conclusions of the Decision Maker, within 10 working days[12] of the referral to the Decision Maker. This letter will outline the right to and timeline for appeal and how to access advice and support if needed.

33.96  The Responding Student has the right of appeal against the decision including any sanction imposed by the Decision Maker. The procedures are set out under §33.106 - §33.118.

Misconduct which is more serious

33.97  The Decision Maker at Level 1 shall refer the matter to the Senate Student Non-Academic Conduct Committee under Level 2 of this Code if they decide that the allegation of misconduct (having regard to the examples given in Annex B), may be more serious than can be considered at Level 1. Any Responding Student whose case is to be considered at Level 1 (Summary Decision) has a right to request that their case is heard by a conduct committee if they want the opportunity to present their case to a committee.

Level 2: Senate Student Non-Academic Conduct Committee

33.98  The Senate Student Non-Academic Conduct Committee (‘the Committee’) is appointed by Senate. The Committee membership is:

• Convener (appointed by Senate);
• Members of University staff[14] (members of or nominated by Senate);
• Student member (the President of the Students’ Representative Council or another SRC sabbatical officer).

At least four members of the Committee must be present at any meeting, including the Convener and at least two senior University staff who have not previously been involved in the misconduct case in question and who do not work directly within the area where the alleged offence took place. All reasonable steps will be taken to include a student member in the Committee (the President of the Students’ Representative Council or another SRC sabbatical officer). Other staff members may be co-opted where appropriate.

33.99  The Decision Maker at Level 1 will give the Committee a written report of the case, consisting of the Investigating Officer’s report and a note of their own deliberations, reasoning and conclusions.

33.100  The Committee will invite the person who has made the allegation to all or part of the meeting as a witness and may interview other witnesses. The Responding Student may invite witnesses to the meeting with the permission of the Convener. The Head of Student Codes must be notified at student-conduct@glasgow.ac.uk, of any witnesses or advisers who may attend at least five working days[12] before the meeting.

33.101  At the meeting:

a)  The Convener of the Committee will introduce all present, confirm whether the Responding Student(s) will be represented by another person, explain the purpose of the meeting and explain any measures in place to protect the wellbeing of the Responding Student(s) and any witnesses (such as those referred to in §33.64). The Convener may impose time limits on presentations and statements and will remind all attendees that the details of the meeting should be treated as confidential.

b)  The Investigating Officer will present the allegation(s) against the Responding Student. They will call witnesses as appropriate. The Committee may also invite the Decision Maker at Level 1 to the meeting if considered necessary.

c)  The Responding Student (or representative) will be invited to respond to the allegation(s) and may call witnesses, as appropriate. The Responding Student will be invited to state whether they admit or deny the allegation(s).

d)  The Committee may ask questions of the Responding Student, the Responding Student’s representative or supporter, the Investigating Officer and any witnesses, including the reporting individual.[13]

e)  Through the Convener, the Responding Student (or their representative) may ask questions of the Investigating Officer, the Decision Maker at Level 1, if present, and witnesses, subject to any alternative arrangements agreed as outlined in §33.64.

f)  The Committee may at any time seek additional evidence or information from other parties at the meeting.

g)  The Convener will invite the Senate Assessor and the Responding Student (or their representative) to sum up.

h)  If the Responding Student admits the allegation(s), they will be invited to give an explanation of the misconduct and advise the Committee of any information that might be relevant in deciding on a sanction.

i)  If the Responding Student denies the allegation(s), the Committee will decide, on the balance of probabilities, whether the Responding Student has committed the alleged misconduct.

33.102  If the Committee decides that the Responding Student has committed misconduct, they will agree on the appropriate sanction in accordance with Annex B.

33.103  The decision of the Committee is normally given verbally at the end of the meeting. The Responding Student will be notified of the outcome of the Committee’s deliberations formally within 10 working days[12] of the meeting. This letter will outline the right to and timeline for appeal and how to access advice and support if needed.

33.104  The Responding Student has the right of appeal against the decision of the Committee including any sanction. The procedures are set out under §33.106 - §33.118.

33.106  A Responding Student may appeal to the Senate Student Conduct Appeal Committee (the “Committee”) against a decision or sanction imposed by the Senate Assessors, the Decision Maker for non-academic misconduct, the Senate Student Academic Conduct Committee or the Senate Student Non-Academic Conduct Committee.

33.107  The Committee will be convened by the Clerk of Senate. The Committee will be appointed by Senate and will be made up of at least two other senior University staff who have not previously been involved in the misconduct case in question and who do not work directly within the area where the alleged offence took place. All reasonable steps will be taken to include a student member in the Committee (the President of the Students’ Representative Council or another SRC sabbatical officer). Other staff members may be co-opted where appropriate. If the Clerk of Senate has had prior involvement with the case, an alternative convener of equivalent seniority (i.e., a Vice Principal) will be appointed. The Committee has full powers to decide the appeal and will report its decision to Senate.

33.108  The Responding Student must appeal in writing to the Director of Academic Services at student-conduct@glasgow.ac.uk within 10 working days[12] of the date of the letter advising of the original decision.

33.109  The Committee shall consider an appeal only on the following grounds:

a)  the Responding Student has new material evidence[15] that they were unable, for valid reasons, to provide earlier in the process and which evidence is likely to have had a material bearing on a decision at the earlier stage;

b)  the procedures set out in this Code have not been followed, to the material detriment of the Responding Student;

c)  the finding of misconduct or sanction(s) imposed at the earlier stage was clearly unreasonable.

33.110  If the appeal does not meet any of these grounds or the appeal is out of time, the Clerk of Senate, in consultation with another member of the Committee may dismiss the appeal.

33.111  The letter of appeal must clearly specify any new evidence, describe how the procedure was defective, or explain why the outcome was unreasonable. If new evidence is submitted, it must be explained why this could not have reasonably been produced at the earlier stage. The letter should also specify the outcome the Responding Student seeks.

33.112  An appeal against a conduct decision normally means that the sanction imposed is not imposed while the appeal is being considered. However, the Clerk of Senate has the right to maintain the sanction, if the Senate Assessors, the Decision Maker for non-academic misconduct, or the Convener of the original Conduct Committee recommend this. In such cases the Clerk of Senate will inform the Responding Student of this decision and the reasons for it. This provision does not apply to a suspension applied as a precautionary measure under §33.31 of this Code which will remain in place until any appeal has been decided.

33.113  The Senate Assessor, the Decision Maker for non-academic misconduct, or the Convener of the original Conduct Committee, as applicable, will receive a copy of the letter of appeal and will provide the Committee with a written statement of the circumstances of the case.

33.114  The Senate Assessor, the Decision Maker for non-academic misconduct, or the Convener of the original Conduct Committee, as applicable, may be invited to the appeal meeting to defend their decision. The Investigating Officer for Non-Academic Misconduct may be invited to attend as a witness. The Head of Student Codes must be notified of any witnesses or advisers who may attend at least five working days[12] before the meeting.

33.115  At the meeting:

a)  the Convener will introduce all present, confirm whether the Responding Student(s) will be represented by another person, explain the purpose of the meeting and explain any measures in place to protect the wellbeing of the Responding Student(s) (such as those referred to in §33.64). The Convener may impose time limits on presentations and statements and will remind all attendees that the details of the meeting should be treated as confidential;

b)  the Convener will invite the Responding Student (or their supporter or representative) to make a statement and the Senate Assessor, Decision Maker for non-academic misconduct, or the Convener of the original Conduct Committee to comment;

c)  the Committee may question the Responding Student, or where appropriate their representative, the Senate Assessor, the Decision Maker for non-academic misconduct, or the Convener of the original Conduct Committee, as applicable, and any witnesses;

33.116  The Committee may set aside, change, or uphold the decision and/or any sanction originally imposed.

33.117  The Responding Student will be notified of the outcome of the Committee’s deliberations in writing within 10 working days[12] of the appeal meeting.

33.118  The decision of the Conduct Appeal Committee is final and there is no further opportunity for appeal against that decision within the University. Paragraph 33.128 outlines the role of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO) in relation to student complaints.

The individuals appointed to roles may nominate another person to carry out all or part of their responsibilities under this Code. Such persons must have similar levels of experience and expertise.

Examples of the types of academic misconduct that might be considered locally or by mutual agreement include:

a)  bringing disallowed items into an examination that would bring no benefit in the assessment, or that were unlikely to be accessible; and/or

b)  allowing another student to copy the student’s work in a formative assessment.

Cases of minor plagiarism in summative assessments may be considered by Schools under the procedures set out in the Plagiarism Statement.

Sanctions for Mutually Agreed or Local Resolution

a)  issue a written warning;

b)  require the student to write a letter of apology;

c)  require attendance at awareness-raising training (for example academic good-practice training). The student may be required to cover the cost of the training; and/or

d)  any combination of the above.

In cases considered under the Plagiarism Statement, Schools are permitted to apply limited academic penalties.

Level 1 – Summary Decision

Examples of the types of academic misconduct that might be considered at Level 1 include:

a)  plagiarism;

b)  copying another student’s work with or without their permission;

c)  undue collaboration between students; and/or

d)  bringing materials into an examination with the potential to gain benefit in the assessment.

Level 1 Sanctions

a)  issue a written warning;

b)  require the student to write a letter of apology;

c)  require attendance at awareness-raising training (for example academic good-practice training);

d)  impose an academic penalty. An academic penalty may include one or more of the following:

i)    a reduction in marks for an individual assessment (including an award of zero marks);

ii)   a reduced course grade (up to the lowest grade, H);

iii)  capping of subsequent course grades or assessment results;

iv)  prohibition of any reassessment opportunity; and/or

v)   refusing credit for a course (CR);

e)  suspend the student from all or part of the University for up to 12 weeks, or impose conditions on the student continuing with studies; and/or

f)  any combination of the above.

Level 2 - Committee Decision

Examples of the types of academic misconduct that might be considered at Level 2 include:

a)  extensive or multiple offences of plagiarism;

b)  submitting coursework assignments that have been purchased from an online provider;

c)  substantial or second offence of cheating in an examination;

d)  attempting to bribe an assessor;

e)  falsifying research results; and/or

f)   failing to uphold legal and ethical requirements of research.

Level 2 Sanctions

a)  impose any of the Level 1 sanctions;

b)  suspend the student from all or part of the University for a specified period;

c)  permanently expel the student from the University; and/or

d)  any other sanction or combination of sanctions that the Committee considers appropriate.

Examples of the types of non-academic misconduct that might be considered locally or by mutual agreement include:

a)  excessive noise, particularly in residences or in the local community;

b)  smoking in non-designated areas;

c)  other minor forms of anti-social behaviour in the University or local community;

d)  disruption of University activities resulting in minor inconvenience;

e)  minor damage to University or another student’s property; and/or

f)  using inappropriate language, noises or gestures.

Sanctions for Mutually Agreed or Local Resolution

a)  issue a written warning;

b)  require the student to write a letter of apology;

c)  require the student to cover the cost of damage to property, or costs incurred as a result of the behaviour, with no financial limit;

d)  levy a fine of up to £250;[17]

e)  issue a non-contact agreement between students; and/or

f)  require attendance at awareness-raising training (for example drug or alcohol awareness).

Level 1 – Summary Decision

Examples of the types of non-academic misconduct that might be considered at Level 1 include:

a)  significant or repeated anti-social behaviour or disruption of University activities;

b)  criminal activity including theft, possession or use of controlled drugs, damaging University property, causing or intending to cause physical harm;

c)  being verbally abusive or intimidating another person;

d)  causing a significant health and safety concern;

e)  misuse of University property;

f)  sexual misconduct (for example touching a person’s clothes or hair or kissing without consent, sharing private sexual materials such as videos);

g)  repeated, unwanted and unsolicited contact with another person electronically or in person;

h)  deception or dishonesty;

i)  harassing or discriminating against any person;

j)  conduct that may harm the University’s reputation; and/or

k)  refusal to comply with another sanction imposed under this code.

Level 1 Sanctions

a)  issue a written warning;

b)  require the student to write a letter of apology;

c)  require the student to cover the cost of damage to property, or costs incurred as a result of the behaviour, with no financial limit;

d)  impose a fine of up to £350;

e)  the imposition of a non-contact order between students;

f)  require attendance at awareness-raising training (for example drug or alcohol awareness). The student may be required to cover the cost of the training;

g)  suspend the student from all or part of the University for up to 12 weeks, or impose conditions on the student continuing with studies; and/or

h)  select any combination of the above.

Level 2 - Committee Decision

Examples of the types of non-academic misconduct that might be resolved at Level 2 include:

a)  repeated Level 1 offences;

b)  submission of falsified medical certificates or other fraudulent extenuating circumstances claims;

c)  engaging in more serious criminal activity including fraud, serious physical assault or threat to life, major damage to University property, repeated possession or use of controlled drugs or supply of drugs, sexual violence (for example rape or intimate touching without consent) or subjecting another student to unwanted sexual acts, domestic violence, possession of indecent images of children, committing hate crimes, possession, use or supply of an offensive weapon;

d)  causing a serious health and safety concern;

e)  downloading pornographic images onto a University computer;

f)  bullying, in person or on social media;

g)  abusive comments or harassment based on a person’s protected characteristics;[2]

h)  engaging in conduct that may significantly harm the University’s reputation; and/or

i)  refusal to comply with a significant sanction imposed under this code.

Level 2 Sanctions

a)  impose any of the Level 1 sanctions;

b)  exclude the student from all or part of University accommodation to the extent permitted by the relevant accommodation contract;

c)  suspend the student from all or part of the University for a specified period;

d)  permanently expel the student from the University; and/or

e)  any other sanction or combination of sanctions that the Committee considers appropriate.