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

33.17  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.[4]

33.18  Students registered on certain professional programmes are subject to the Fitness to Practise Procedure.[5] 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 Conduct in writing at student-conduct@glasgow.ac.uk. The Fitness to Practise Officer and the Head of Student Conduct 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.

33.21   The University recognises that some allegations of misconduct are extremely distressing for the student alleged to have breached conduct regulations and for the person making the allegation.

Where a case is taken forward under this Code students are signposted to relevant sources of support in the University, including the SRC.

33.22   The SRC provides confidential, independent and impartial support and guidance through its Advice Centre for the Responding Student and for the Reporting Individual (where that individual is a registered student of the University) throughout the conduct process.

33.29  The University will treat allegations of misconduct, and sanctions applied, confidentially except to the extent 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, research funders, 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Details of misconduct and sanctions will not be published on the student’s degree transcript (Higher Education Achievement Report) and will not normally be divulged in references unless specifically requested by the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 SRC Advice Centre (see §33.21 - §33.22 above) will discuss any potential sharing of information with the Responding Student or Reporting Individual All attendees will be reminded that the details of meetings under this Code should be treated as confidential.

33.30  Details of conduct decisions are held confidentially in Legal and Governance 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.

33.31  Once a decision has been reached on the case, the Reporting Individual will normally be informed 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.  Parties, such as alleged victims and witnesses, may be informed of the sanction imposed where the University considers that it is of direct interest for them to be informed (by way of example, in cases of violence, sexual violence, bullying or harassment, it may be appropriate for the alleged victim to be informed of any sanction relating to restrictions on attendance on campus, approaching named individuals, etc).

33.32  All individuals involved in a procedure under this Code, including the Responding Student and their accompanying individual (if any), must communicate and act respectfully and reasonably and in accordance with this Code and the University’s Code of Practice on Unacceptable Behaviour.[6] Staff with responsibilities under this Code may halt proceedings and refer to the Head of Student Conduct 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 following consultation with the Head of Student Conduct.

33.33  Responding Students, Reporting Individuals and witnesses are entitled to be accompanied to meetings under this Code.

The accompanying individual will normally be a family member, a fellow student or friend, an adviser from the SRC Advice Centre, or a member of University staff, provided that they are not also a witness.

The role of the accompanying individual is to provide moral and pastoral support to the person they are accompanying to the meeting. The accompanying individual shall not disrupt the proper conduct of the meeting.

33.34  The Responding Student must inform the Head of Student Conduct (student-conduct@glasgow.ac.uk) at least five working days[7] before the relevant meeting of the name of any person who may attend to accompany them.

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

33.36   There is no automatic right for a student to have legal representation at meetings and hearings and legal representation is only allowed for meetings or hearings where the student has been granted express permission in advance (see §33.37 below). The Responding Student will normally be advised to seek support and guidance from the SRC Advice Centre.

33.37  If the Responding Student wishes to be accompanied or represented by a person not listed in §33.33 above, the student must make a request in writing to the Head of Student Conduct (student-conduct@glasgow.ac.uk) at least five working days[7] before the meeting or hearing.

The decision whether to allow legal representation will be for the Head of Student Conduct in consultation with the Senate Assessor, Investigating Officer, Decision Maker, or Convener of the relevant Conduct Committee or Appeal Meeting, as appropriate.

Factors that will be considered in deciding whether to grant permission will include:

• the seriousness of the allegation and the potential sanction (for example, whether the outcome of the hearing could deprive the Responding Student of the right to practise their chosen profession or could irretrievably prejudice that right);
• the capacity of the Responding Student to understand the allegation(s) made against them and to defend/present their own case;
• the need for reasonable speed in achieving an outcome and to avoid delay;
• whether any points of law are likely to arise (in most cases the purpose of any meeting or hearing will be to determine points of fact and not law);
• any probable procedural difficulties;
• the need for fairness between the Responding Student and those making allegations; and
• other relevant factors, including any representations made by the Responding Student.

Where permission is granted, the Responding Student will be responsible for paying the costs of their representation (including legal costs) and these will not be reimbursed by the University.

33.38  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 Responding Student's absence. If the allegation is found to be established, an appropriate sanction will be applied and the Responding Student will be notified of the outcome in writing.

33.39  Where an allegation is made against more than one Responding Student for the same offence, each of the Responding Students will be given an equal opportunity to respond. The Head of Student Conduct 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.

33.40  The Senate Assessors (in the case of academic misconduct) or the Investigating Officer (in the case of 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.

33.41  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 Conduct.

33.42   All meetings under this Code, where Responding Students and / or Reporting Individuals are present, 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. For the purposes of this section, an Investigating Officer under this Code who is external to the University is a representative from the University.

33.43   A written record of the meetings with the Investigating Officer (in the case of allegations of academic misconduct) or Senate Assessor (in the case of allegations of academic misconduct),  and of Conduct and Appeal Committee meetings, will normally be shared with the Responding Student within 10 working days7 of the meeting. Reports of Investigating Officers for non-academic misconduct will normally be shared with the Responding Student within 10 working days7 of the outcome agreed by the Decision Maker.

33.44   Records of student conduct correspondence, risk assessments and meetings 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 that is longer.

33.45  Electronic recordings of any meetings held under the Code of Student Conduct are not permitted unless required as, for example, a reasonable adjustment relating to disability. Requests relating to recording meetings must be made in writing to the Head of Student Conduct student-conduct@glasgow.ac.uk.

33.46   An Annual Report will be presented to Senate stating the number and types of misconduct reported, and the outcomes at Level 1 and Level 2; and the number and types of appeals heard by the Conduct Appeal Committees.

33.47  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.

33.48  At least 10 working days[7] 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.

33.49  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. The statement should be submitted to the Head of Student Conduct (student-conduct@glasgow.ac.uk) no later than five working days[7] before the relevant meeting.

33.50  The Committee will rely only on evidence presented (either verbally or in writing) at the meeting in making their decision.

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

33.52  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.

33.53  Where safeguarding concerns are raised, the Convener of each Committee should seek advice from the Safeguarding Manager as to steps they consider necessary to support wellbeing and participation of the Reporting Individual (where they are a University of Glasgow student), the Responding Student, and any witnesses (where they are University of Glasgow students or staff). 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. Where reasonably possible, the arrangements to support wellbeing will be agreed and notified in advance of the meeting.

33.54   Allegations of academic misconduct should be made in writing to the Head of Student Conduct at student-conduct@glasgow.ac.uk.

33.55   The University will not generally investigate reports, under this Code, that have been made anonymously, but the information shared may be used to inform understanding of current issues and shape future work, such as campaigns and resourcing.

33.56   Conduct procedures will proceed without undue delay and where possible 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, or due to other circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the University. Note that at certain times of year academic cases may take longer than 90 days due to the increased number of referrals and the need to prioritise graduating students.  Relevant parties will be informed of likely timescales and updated where delays are necessary or otherwise occur.

33.57  The Senate shall appoint a cohort of not less than five Senate Assessors for Student Academic Conduct (‘the Senate Assessors’), from which Senate Assessors will be selected to consider individual cases and take disciplinary action under this Code. 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.

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

33.59   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 C.

33.60  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 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

33.61   A Senate Assessor will carry out an appropriate investigation into the allegation(s).  This may include interviews with the Reporting Individual and with other relevant students and/or staff. The Senate Assessor will be advised and assisted by members of the Student Conduct Team as appropriate. The Senate Assessor will have had no previous involvement in the case. The Senate Assessor may decide, after investigation and in consultation with another Senate Assessor, not to take the matter further or to interview the Responding Student using the Procedure at Level 1.

33.62   If the allegation(s) is considered to be more serious (having regard to the examples given in Annex C), the Senior Senate Assessor can decide in consultation 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

33.63  The Responding Student will normally be invited 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.

33.64  The Responding Student will be given notice (normally not less than seven days) of the meeting and provided with the details of the allegation and a copy of the Conduct procedures in advance. The Responding Student will also be told how to access advice and support, for example from the SRC Advice Centre.

---

+++

Outcome at Level 1

33.65  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;
c)  impose a sanction in accordance with Annex C;
d)  refer the matter to the Senate Student Academic Conduct Committee.

33.66  The Senate Assessors will normally tell the Responding Student the outcome at the end of the meeting, and the outcome will normally be confirmed in writing within 10 working days.[7] This letter will outline the right to and timeline for appeal and how to access advice and support if needed.

33.67  The relevant School will be informed in writing 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).

33.68  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 §33.109 - §33.123.

---

+++

Misconduct which is more serious

33.69  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 C), may be more serious than can be considered at Level 1.

---

33.70  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 previous involvement with the Responding Student or work directly within the area where any alleged misconduct took place.

33.71  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.

33.72  The Senate Assessors and Respond Student musty notify the Head of Student Conduct, at student-conduct@glasgow.ac.uk, of any witnesses who may attend at least five working days[7] before the meeting is due to take place.

33.73  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 §33.53). Subject to their duty to ensure the procedure as a whole is fair, 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.[8]
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 §33.53.
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.

33.74  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 C.

33.75  The decision of the Committee is normally given verbally following conclusion of the Committee's deliberations. The Responding Student will normally be notified of the Committee’s decision formally within 10 working days[7] of the meeting. 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 Committee including any sanction imposed. The procedures are set out under §33.109 - §33.123.

33.77   Allegations of non-academic misconduct should be made in writing to the Head of Student Conduct at student-conduct@glasgow.ac.uk.

33.78   The University will not generally investigate reports, under this Code, that have been made anonymously, but the information shared may be used to inform understanding of current issues and shape future work, such as campaigns and resourcing.

33.79  Conduct procedures will proceed without undue delay and will not normally take more than 22 working weeks[9] from the initial referral 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 occur or are necessary.

See Annex D for the breakdown of this procedural timescale.

+++

Investigating Officers

33.91  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.

33.92  The Investigating Officer will conduct their investigation as they see fit.

33.93  The Investigating Officer will normally meet with the Reporting Individual and may meet with other witnesses and consider documents or other evidence relevant to the case.

33.94  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.

33.95  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.

33.96  The Investigating Officer will write a report which outlines the process followed, the witnesses spoken to, the information gathered in their investigation, and their conclusion as to whether or not misconduct occurred under this Code. Investigating Officers should not make recommendations for disposal.

---

+++

Level 1 – Summary Decision

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

a)  dismiss the allegation of misconduct and advise that no further action should be taken;
b)  request further investigation;
c)  impose a sanction in accordance with Annex C; or
d)  refer the matter to the Senate Student Non-Academic Conduct Committee.

33.98  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[7] 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.

33.99  The Responding Student has the right of appeal. The procedures are set out under §33.109 - §33.123.

33.100  Other interested parties may be notified of the outcome in accordance with §33.31.

---

+++

Misconduct which is more serious

33.101  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 C), 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

33.102  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[10] (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 members of University staff. No member of the Committee will have had previous involvement with the Responding Student or work directly within the area where any alleged misconduct took place. Reasonable steps will be taken to include a student member in the Committee (the President of the Glasgow University Students’ Representative Council or another SRC sabbatical officer). Other staff members may be co-opted where appropriate.

33.103  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.

33.104  The Reporting Individual will be invited as a witness and the Investigating Officer may invite other relevant witnesses to attend the meeting. The Responding Student may invite witnesses to the meeting. The Committee may also invite the Decision Maker at Level 1 to the meeting if considered necessary. The Head of Student Conduct must be notified at student-conduct@glasgow.ac.uk of any witnesses who may attend at least five working days[7] before the meeting.

33.105  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 §33.53). Subject to their duty to ensure the procedure as a whole is fair, 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 be invited to present the allegation(s) against the Responding Student. They will call witnesses as appropriate.
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, the Decision Maker at Level 1, if present, and any witnesses, including the reporting individual.
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 §33.53.
f)  Through the Convener, the Investigating Officer 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 Investigative Officer 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.

33.106  If, on the balance of probabilities, the Committee decides that the Responding Student has committed misconduct, they will agree on the appropriate sanction in accordance with Annex C.

33.107  The decision of the Committee is normally given verbally following conclusion of their deliberations. The Responding Student will be notified of the outcome of the Committee’s deliberations formally within 10 working days[7] of the meeting. This letter will outline the right to and timeline for appeal and how to access advice and support if needed.

33.108  The Responding Student has the right of appeal against the decision of the Committee including any sanction. The procedures are set out under §33.109 - §33.123.

---

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

33.111  The Responding Student must appeal in writing to the Head of Student Conduct at student-conduct@glasgow.ac.uk within 10 working days[7] of the date of the letter advising of the original decision.

33.112  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.

33.113  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.

33.114  The Committee will be convened by the Clerk of Senate. The Committee will be appointed by the Clerk of Senate or the University Principal and Vice-Chancellor, 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.

33.115  In cases of appeal from a decision of the Senate Assessors (Level 1, academic misconduct) or the Decision Maker (Level 1, non-academic misconduct) where new evidence or other information presented is accepted by the relevant Senate Assessors or Decision Maker (as the case may be) and which would have resulted in a lesser sanction had it been available at an earlier stage, the Clerk of Senate may, in consultation with another member of the Committee, uphold the appeal and vary or remove the sanction applied without the need for a Committee hearing.

33.116  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.

33.117  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 (in cases of academic misconduct), the Decision Maker (in cases of 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 §33.83 of this Code which will normally remain in place until any appeal has been decided, subject to §33.86.

33.118  The Senate Assessor (in cases of academic misconduct), the Decision Maker (in cases of 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 and a response to the points of appeal.

33.119  Many appeals will be capable of being determined without any need for the Committee to hear evidence from witnesses. The Committee may, through the Head of Student Conduct or their nominee, invite such witnesses to the appeal meeting as they consider may be necessary in order to consider the appeal (which may include, without limitation, the relevant Investigating Officer, the Senate Assessor (in the case of academic misconduct), the Decision Maker (in the case of non-academic misconduct), or the Convener of the original Conduct Committee, as applicable). The Responding Student must notify the Head of Student Conduct, at student-conduct@glasgow.ac.uk, of any witnesses who may attend the meeting at least five working days7 before the meeting is due to take place. Any such notification should be accompanied by an explanation of why the witnesses are relevant to the ground(s) of appeal.

33.120  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 §33.53). Subject to their duty to ensure the procedure as a whole is fair, the Convener may impose time limits on witness evidence, as well as 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 setting out their grounds for appeal and may invite the Senate Assessor (in the case of academic misconduct), Decision Maker (in the case of non-academic misconduct), or the Convener of the original Conduct Committee, if present, to comment;
c)  the Committee may question the Responding Student, or where appropriate their representative and any witnesses;
d)  the Responding Student (or their representative) will be invited to provide a closing statement, should they wish. No new evidence may be introduced during a closing statement.

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

33.122  The decision of the Committee is normally given verbally following conclusion of deliberations. The Responding Student will be issued with a Completion of Procedures letter, which will include the outcome of the Committee’s deliberations within 10 working days[7] of the appeal meeting.

33.123  The decision of the Conduct Appeal Committee is final and there is no further opportunity for appeal against that decision within the University. Paragraph 33.133 outlines the role of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO).

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.

Academic misconduct is conduct which, in the context of a University examination or assessment, gains or attempts to gain, or assists others in gaining or attempting to gain, unfair academic advantage, or which puts others at an unfair academic disadvantage. In all cases, it is the action (or inaction) that is of primary concern, although intent may be relevant to the consideration of sanction, should academic misconduct be found to have occurred.

Examples of academic misconduct include (but are not restricted to):

a)  plagiarism i.e. taking the work of another person or source (including so-called artificial intelligence sources) and using it as if it were one’s own without appropriate reference or acknowledgment;
b)  self-plagiarism i.e. resubmitting previously submitted work (whether at the University or another institution) without proper acknowledgement for separate blocks of credit;
c)  purchasing work or having it produced (in whole or in part) by any other person, agency, website, software or service (and whether or not for a fee);
d)  sitting an examination or assessment for someone else or having someone else sit an examination or assessment for oneself;
e)  providing or sharing one’s own work with another student to use for assessment, or producing work for another student, or collaborating in the preparation of an assessment unless explicitly permitted (such as with groupwork assignments);
f)  dishonesty in order to gain academic advantage;
g)  communicating with, disturbing, copying from, or colluding with, other students during an assessment or examination whether in-person or online;
h)  bringing into, using, or accessing in an examination material or items that are not expressly permitted. This may include, but is not limited to:
i)  bringing or using unauthorised mobile phones, laptops, computers, tablets, smart watches, unauthorised types of calculator, or other unauthorised electronic devices, notes, 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.
ii)  accessing material that is not expressly permitted via an authorised electronic device;
i)  offering, promising, or giving any member of University staff (or related personnel, such as external examiners) money, gift, or other advantage which is or may be intended to induce that person to perform improperly a relevant function or activity, or to reward that person for the improper performance of such a function or activity in the marking or processing of any assessment or examination;
j)  failing to comply with any rules applicable to the relevant examination or assessment of which the student has been made aware, or to comply with any reasonable instruction of an invigilator;
k)  research misconduct (as described in the University’s Code of Policy and Procedures for Investigating Allegations of Misconduct in Research[12]) or otherwise failing to comply with the University’s Code of Good Practice in Research in a manner which gains or attempts to gain, or assists others in gaining or attempting to gain, unfair academic advantage.

Examples of non-academic misconduct include (but are not restricted to):

a)  Engaging in criminal activity.
b)  Aggressive or abusive behaviour, including behaviour or language (whether spoken, written, or electronically) which causes another person to feel unduly concerned, afraid, threatened or abused or otherwise behaving in a physically disorderly, threatening, offensive, indecent or violent manner or inciting others to do so.
c)  Unreasonable or unduly persistent behaviour, including making unreasonable or unduly persistent demands of the University or its staff, to the detriment of the University or other members of the University community.
d)  Disruptive behaviour, including disrupting, or interfering with, any academic, administrative, sporting, social, cultural or other University activity or preventing, hindering or obstructing any member of the University community from carrying out their duties or activities (noting that this does not disproportionately interfere with any right to make fair and justified comment, criticism or protest).
e)  Any form of sexual misconduct including, without limitation, sexual violence, unwelcome sexual advances, sexual harassment, unwanted touching, stalking, sexual coercion, indecent communication including, without limitation, the making of sexually abusive or degrading remarks, sexual exposure, voyeurism, display or sharing (or threatened sharing) of pornographic or intimate images, video or other content without consent, and any other unwanted conduct of a sexual nature.
f)  Anti-social behaviour or behaving in a way that risks (whether deliberately or recklessly) the health, safety or welfare of any person, or could cause injury.
g)  Harassing, bullying, victimising, or discriminating against any person including on the basis of their age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage or civil partnership, pregnancy, maternity, race, ethnic or national origin, religion or beliefs, sex, sexual orientation, or socio-economic background.[13]
h)  Possessing, using or supplying a controlled drug as defined by the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (as amended from time to time).
i)  The unlawful possession, use or supply of an offensive weapon.
j)  Behaving dishonestly by engaging in or facilitating fraud, deception, misrepresentation, or personation (including the falsification or misuse of the University name, documents, or logo).
k)  Damaging or vandalising University property or the property of any person.
l)  Stealing or misappropriating University property (including funds and intellectual property) or the property of any person.
m)  Misusing or making unauthorised use of University premises or property, including misusing IT facilities or safety equipment.
n)  Unauthorised disclosure or misuse of private or confidential information.
o)  Deliberately doing, or failing to do, anything that thereby causes the University to be in breach of a statutory obligation.
p)  Making false, frivolous, malicious or vexatious complaints (without removing the right to make complaints and raise concerns through formal procedures).
q)  Conduct that may harm the University’s reputation (noting that this does not disproportionately interfere with any right to make fair and justified comment, criticism or protest).
r)  Failing to comply with the University’s rules, regulations, policies, procedures, or codes of conduct, including (without limitation) failing to comply with any previously imposed sanction under this Code.

This Annex outlines the types of misconduct that might be considered to fall within the different levels of the Student Code of Conduct. Each case is considered on an individual basis, depending on its context, and so the examples are not intended to be exhaustive or invariable.

This Annex also outlines the possible sanctions at each of the levels. The decision makers at each level will consider several factors when deciding on sanctions which may include:

a)  the nature of the offence;
b)  the extent of and potential advantage of the offence, for example in cases of cheating,
c)  the level of intentionality and pre-planning;
d)  previous conduct (a first offence is likely to be treated more leniently than a second or later offence);
e)  for non-academic cases,[14] whether the student admits to the offence, recognises the harm caused and demonstrates remorse;
f)  whether the student has attempted to conceal or destroy evidence or influence any person involved in the misconduct or its investigation; and/or
g)  whether the offence has a disproportionate impact on or is specifically aimed at a person or persons with protected characteristics.[2]

NB Misconduct initially considered locally, through mutual agreement, or at Level 1 may be escalated to a higher level if the investigator or decision maker finds that the misconduct was more serious than at first thought. Misconduct considered at Level 2 may be referred back to a previous stage for further investigation, if required, or to a lower level if found to be less serious than at first thought.

+++

Mutually Agreed or Local Resolution

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.

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

---

+++

Resolution after Investigation under the Code of Student Conduct

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.

Examples of 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.

Examples of 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.

---

+++

Mutually Agreed or Local Resolution

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.

---

+++

Examples of 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;[15]
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);
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.

---

+++

Examples of 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 considered 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.

---

+++

Examples of Level 2 Sanctions

a)  impose any of the Level 1 sanctions;
b)  exclude 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.

---