1. Academic Misconduct Panels Student Governance December 2013 AMP DEC13

2. Purpose To better understand the AMP process Consideration of evidence Reaching a decision Reporting to the Assessment Board AMP DEC13

3. Underlying Principles Fairness & Transparency Consistency in process & penalty Timeliness Keeping students informed AMP DEC13

4. Student / University Contract Student agrees to abide by regulations and be subject to relevant procedures (disciplinary / academic / complaints etc). University agrees to ensure robust & fair proceedings (to investigate / make findings / impose penalties as appropriate). University must follow own procedures and public law principles of natural justice. AMP DEC13

5. Principles of Natural Justice. Principles of fairness underpinning public law: There are two sides to every dispute All parties are given the opportunity to provide evidence to substantiate their version of the issue / incident Full disclosure of any allegations and evidence will be made to those parties involved All parties have the right to be accompanied by a friend at each stage of the procedure. All parties have the right to an unbiased & fair consideration of the matter. AMP DEC13

6. Before the AMP Suspicion of academic misconduct Is there a case to answer Liaise with Faculty Registrar Evidence If yes then: Full disclosure of information & evidence to students AMP DEC13

7. Definition of a Friend LJMU defines a friend as a person who accompanies a student to provide support, who is with the student during proceedings. Students are responsible for making their own arrangements to have an appropriate friend in attendance at proceedings. the friend may ask questions through the Chair of the Panel in order to clarify issues or procedures. AMP DEC13

8. Conducting the AMP Composition of the Panel Conflict of interest Presenting officer Responsibilities of the chair Conduct of proceedings Proceedings must be formally minuted AMP DEC13

9. Analysing the Evidence Be objective Challenge inconsistencies To what extent does the evidence support the allegations? Is the evidence relevant / hearsay /third party /prejudicial? If conflicting evidence, which is more credible and why? November 2013AMP DEC13

10. Conclusions / findings Standard of proof is civil standard reasonable belief - balance of probabilities based on the evidence. Not criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt but: Seriousness of the allegation / potential consequences - weight of evidence The basis for the final decision / recommendation must be clear and explicit. November 2013AMP DEC13

11. Penalty tariff 305 - 349: Mark of 0 for assessment component - student may re-submit if referred 350 - 479: Mark of 0 for module - student may re-submit at referral 480 – 524: Mark of 0 no opportunity to resubmit. 525+: Case referred to Assessment Board Recommend expulsion with alternative exit award as appropriate or recommend expulsion with any award withheld AMP DEC13

12. After the AMP The AMP report must demonstrate clear reasoning behind decision Notification to students Decisions are reported to Assessment Boards Risks When do AMPs meet Unreasonable delay Academic progress AMP DEC13

13. Post AMP Application of the penalty AMP appeals Reporting to assessment boards Expulsion procedure AMP DEC13

14. Institutional risks Reputational damage May attract public / press attention Costs Time Badly managed cases may be more easily challenged Challenges more likely to proceed Financial cost incurred in preparing representation for OIA / Courts Other legal costs / compensation AMP DEC13

15. Questions? AMP DEC13