Academic Appeals
Stage 1
Grounds
- Mitigating circumstances: circumstances affected performance, were not disclosed when the decision was made for a good reason, and materially affected the outcome.
- Administrative/procedural error: material error or irregularity creating significant doubt that the decision would have been the same.
- Bias/prejudice: evidence of examiner bias or prejudice.
- Research supervision: inadequate supervision/training seriously affected performance.
Procedure
- Deadline: 20 working days from notification of confirmed results/decision. Late appeals require a good reason and evidence.
- The School checks whether the appeal is valid, based on an eligible ground and supported by evidence where necessary.
- If eligible, it is considered by the Head of School or appropriate academic.
- The original decision may be changed or confirmed, with reasons.
- The initial assessment normally takes place within 20 working days. If the appeal does not meet the requirements, the student will normally be informed in writing within 10 working days.
- If dissatisfied, the student may request Stage 2 within 10 working days.
Stage 2 - Formal Consideration
- The Faculty reviews the appeal, including the School's response.
- The Faculty may dismiss the appeal where the Stage 1 decision was reasonable, or accept it for further consideration.
- If accepted, the Faculty may:
- dismiss the appeal;
- refer the matter back to the original Examination Board/PGR Committee to reconsider the new information; or
- refer complex issues to an Appeal Panel.
- If the appeal is dismissed, the student may request a Stage 3 review where the matter was improperly or unfairly dealt with.
- Where an appeal is referred back and the original decision is changed, the new decision replaces the original and completes the appeal process.
Stage 3 - Review
- A Stage 3 review must normally be requested within 10 working days of the Faculty's decision.
- Grounds are:
- a procedure was not followed and this affected the outcome;
- the Faculty's decision was unreasonable in light of the circumstances and evidence; or
- new evidence could not reasonably have been provided earlier for a good reason.
- This is not a rehearing. The reviewer considers whether the correct procedure was followed and whether the Faculty's decision was reasonable based on the evidence.
- The reviewer may confirm the Faculty's decision or apply another available outcome.
Mitigating Circumstances
Deadlines
- Examinations: the School's published end-of-semester deadline, generally 7 calendar days after the end of the assessment period.
- Coursework: 7 calendar days after the submission deadline for the affected coursework.
- Late applicationsmay be considered where the student provides a strong and acceptable reason for the delay.
Circumstances that may qualify
- Health: illness, injury or a significant deterioration in an ongoing illness or disability, including mental health difficulties.
- Personal circumstances: death or serious illness of a close family member/dependant, significant personal or family crisis, unpredictable caring responsibilities, or major financial problems causing acute stress.
- IT problems: certain network or hardware failures affecting submission.
- Public service: for example, jury service.
Circumstances that do not normally qualify
- Normally excluded are:
- Holidays
- Moving house
- Loss/theft of equipment where a backup or alternative was reasonably available
- Religious observance
- Most paid employment
- Assessments being close together
- Misunderstanding requirements or timetables
- Inadequate planning/time management
- Starting work late
- Ordinary exam stress without appropriate supporting evidence.
- Problems in the examination room should normally be reported to the invigilator at the time.
- Pregnancy: considered case-by-case. Pregnancy itself will not normally constitute mitigating circumstances, but circumstances affecting the student or their partner may qualify where they negatively affect academic performance.
- Long-term conditions: longstanding or foreseeable conditions should generally be addressed through the University's disability and support processes rather than repeated mitigation applications. A significant or unexpected deterioration may still qualify.
Academic Misconduct
Allegation and Initial Assessment
- Academic malpractice is normally considered where summative assessment is affected. Formative work may instead result in feedback, advice or a warning.
- Evidence should be gathered and objectively assessed before disciplinary action is taken.
- Turnitin does not establish malpractice by itself; it identifies similarities requiring academic judgment.
- Where possible, work is marked as normal while the allegation is investigated, although the mark may be withheld.
- Poor academic practice may be dealt with through feedback; potential malpractice is referred into the appropriate disciplinary process.
- The University should normally decide whether to refer an allegation within 20 working days of detection.
Fast-track procedure
- Straightforward, less serious cases may be dealt with through the fast-track process where, among other things:
- there are no previous relevant offences;
- the student accepts the proposed finding;
- the circumstances are sufficiently clear without a hearing; and
- the proposed penalty falls within the permitted fast-track range.
- The student receives the proposed finding, reasons and evidence and normally has 5 working days to accept or reject it. Failure to respond may be treated as acceptance.
- If rejected, the matter proceeds to a disciplinary hearing, where the full range of penalties may be available. A fast-track process is generally inappropriate for complex or multiple allegations, disputed cases, serious/repeat misconduct, dissertations, or cases where the potential penalty could substantially affect the student's intended award.
Summary Disciplinary Panel (SDP)
- Less serious cases are normally dealt with by a Summary Disciplinary Panel.
- The hearing is normally arranged within 20 working days of referral and convened within 30 working days.
- The student should receive at least 5 working days' notice, including the allegation and relevant evidence.
- Students may respond to the allegation, provide evidence and call relevant substantive witnesses. They may be accompanied by an appropriate supporter.
- The University may call witnesses and present documentary evidence.
- Hearings are normally online, although a face-to-face hearing may be arranged where appropriate.
- Attendance is compulsory; the Panel may proceed in the student's absence without good reason.
- The Panel decides on the balance of probabilities.
- The Panel may dismiss the allegation or impose an appropriate penalty. More serious cases may be referred to the UDP.
- A written decision and reasons should normally be provided within 10 working days.
SDP Appeal
- An appeal must normally be submitted within 10 working days of the written decision.
- Grounds include:
- a procedural irregularity;
- new evidence that could not reasonably have been provided earlier; or
- a disproportionate penalty.
- The appeal is normally a documentary review rather than a rehearing. The decision-maker may confirm or set aside the finding, confirm/set aside/reduce/increase the penalty, or refer the matter to a newly constituted SDP.
- The decision normally completes the University's internal disciplinary process unless the matter is referred back.
University Disciplinary Panel (UDP)
- Serious or repeated misconduct is dealt with by a University Disciplinary Panel.
- The process is normally arranged within 20 working days of referral and convened within 30 working days.
- The student should normally receive at least 10 working days' notice of the hearing, allegation, evidence and procedure.
- Students may respond to the allegation, provide evidence, call relevant substantive witnesses and be accompanied by an appropriate supporter.
- The hearing is normally online but may be held face-to-face where appropriate.
- Attendance is compulsory; the Panel may proceed in the student's absence without good reason.
- The Panel decides on the balance of probabilities and considers previous offences, relevant mitigation and the consequences of the penalty.
- A written decision and reasons should normally be provided within 10 working days.
- Penalties can include measures affecting the relevant assessment, loss of reassessment opportunities, reduction of marks or classification, and in serious cases expulsion.
UDP Appeal
- An appeal must normally be submitted within 10 working days of the written decision.
- Grounds are:
- a procedural irregularity that created a reasonable doubt about the fairness or outcome of the process;
- new evidence that could not reasonably have been provided earlier; or
- a disproportionate penalty.
- The University first checks whether the appeal is eligible. If accepted, it may be determined by documentary review or referred to an Appeal Board.
The appeal body may confirm or set aside the finding, confirm/set aside/reduce/increase the penalty, or refer the matter to a newly constituted UDP.
