Senate

---

Subject:        Amendment to Ordinance XVII

Origin:           Secretary to Student Discipline Committee

---

1. It is proposed that Ordinance XVII be amended as below:

3. Major Offences...

(ii) Procedure...

(b) Where there is prima facie evidence of a breach of discipline, the Chief Operating Officer (or nominee) shall contact the student on behalf of the University inviting him/her to admit or deny the charge within five working days.

(c) In the event of the student admitting the charge, the procedure shall be as follows: -

(i) A Hearing shall normally take place within a further ten twenty working days..."

2. Reason for the Proposed Amendment.

The ten working day deadline referred to above was established on the understanding that there would be a dedicated Case Officer, acting as the Chief Operating Officer’s (COO) nominee in student disciplinary matters. The need to revise this timescale has arisen following the decision not to recruit a replacement Case Officer after the resignation of the previous incumbent.

The Case Officer was normally in contact with students who were accused of disciplinary offences, as part of his investigatory role, and would know whether they intended to admit or deny the charges against them, prior to contacting them formally on behalf of the COO under 3(ii)(b) above. Where the Case Officer knew that a student intended to admit to the charge(s) against them, he would liaise with the Sectretary to the Student Discipline Committee (SDC), and arrange for a "fast-track" panel to be set up within the 10 working day period referred to, in anticipation of the student's formal response.

Subsequent to the decision not to recruit a replacement Case Officer, it has been agreed that the Secretary to the SDC will take on the "laying of charges" role, and act as the COO's nominee under 3(ii)(b). However, unlike the Case Officer, the Secretary normally has no contact with students accused of disciplinary offences prior to this point. This means that the Secretary must either:

• Make arrangements for a "fast-track" panel to meet, just in case the student admits the charges (wasting everyone's time if they don't). Or:
• Wait for the student to respond, and if they admit the charge, try to arrange for a "fast-track" panel to meet within the following 10 working days. While this is occasionally possible, it is usually very difficult to find a date when all involved are available at such short notice. The Ordinance therefore sets out a timescale to which the University is frequently unable to adhere.

The proposed change would not undermine the purpose of the "fast-track" procedure, because such cases would still be concluded more quickly than others, and most importantly, the procedures followed would continue to be significantly scaled-down (no cross-examination, no witnesses etc). However, it would mean that the Ordinance described a realistic timeframe, without the need to rely on informal contact with the students involved.