Student Discipline Committee

DISC09-M2

Minutes of the meeting of the Student Discipline Committee held on 1 June 2009.

Members: A M Mumford (Chair), J Bernstein (ab), J Blackwell (ab), J B C Blood, H P Drake (ab), F T Edum-Fotwe (ab), D Goss (ab), D Green (ab), R M King, S A Mason, R H Mayo, D McNeice, C Morris (ab), J Naylor (ab), G Payne (ab), M Shuker (ab), J A M Strong, J B Thomas (ab), W Thomas (ab), A Watson (ab).

By invitation: P P Conway, R J Kennedy, J C Nutkins (ab), S W Spinks, N Thomas.

In attendance: C Dunbobbin.

Apologies for absence: J Blackwell, H P Drake, D Goss, J B Thomas, A Watson.

________________________________________________________________

The Committee welcomed Anne Mumford as its new Chair.

09/9 Minutes
DISC09-M1

The minutes of the meeting held on 10 February 2009 were confirmed as a true record.

09/10 Matters Arising from the Minutes

10.1 Membership

(Minute 09/2.1 refers)

A lay member of Court, to fill the vacancy that existed on the Committee, had been identified by the Academic Registrar, and it was anticipated that agreement would be reached for her to take on the role in good time for the start of the 2009-10 academic year. In addition, efforts would be made to replace any lay members who had not been in a position to participate in Committee and Panel meetings in 2008-09, and who would be able to do so again in 2009-10. ACTION: Secretary.

10.2 Cycle Path Provision / Dangerous Cycling on Campus

DISC09-P5 (Minute 09/2.3 refers)

The Committee received a response from the Chair of the Transport Sustainability Group (TSG) to an enquiry from the Committee concerning the enhancement of cycle-path provision to alleviate the incidence of dangerous cycling on campus. The TSG had recently been reconstituted after two years of inactivity, and was involved in three major studies on traffic safety and accessibility, landscape strategy, and green travel. It was hoped that the outcomes of these projects, which would begin to emerge later in 2009, would result in safer routes for cyclists.

10.3 Preparation and Prosecution of Student Disciplinary Cases

DISC09-P6 (minute 09/3 refers)

The Committee received an exchange of notes between the Chair of the Student Discipline Committee and the Chief Operating Officer (COO). The following points were noted in discussion:

(i) The COO welcomed the Committee’s interest in this issue. It was accepted that there had been some initial difficulties following the handover of responsibilities for the preparation and prosecution of cases in Summer 2008. However, the concerns raised by the Committee had been taken into consideration, and it was emphasised in particular that accountabilities within the Security Section had been revised to allow the key elements of the Case Officer role to be absorbed; that the COO now received weekly updates from the Security Manager on cases under investigation; and that the University’s Community Relations Officer had taken on the management of community service penalties. The COO was confident that the University was as well placed now as ever to prepare and prosecute student disciplinary cases in a timely and professional manner. This view was supported by the prompt and effective disposal of a large number of cases in the latter part of Semester 2 2008-09.

(ii) It was agreed that arrangements in this area would be kept under review, and considered again by the Committee in November 2009. In the meantime, the COO would give consideration to residual concerns relating to contingency arrangements (including the training of deputies) in the event of the Security Manager or Deputy Security Manager being unavailable (e.g. due to ill-health, or some other unforeseen absence) to fulfill their roles in investigating and prosecuting cases. ACTION: SWS.

10.4 Minor Offences

DISC09-P7 (minute 09/4(i) refers)

The Committee received a response from the Warden of Cayley Hall to a query about minor offence disciplinary action taken in respect of a serious case of vandalism.

The COO noted, in general terms, that it was occasionally necessary to take difficult decisions relating to the classification of offences, and that some incidents were ultimately dealt with under the minor offence procedures, even though they appeared, on first impression, to be major offences. For example, where a student was charged with conduct which appeared to constitute a criminal offence, factors relating to the quality of the evidence (including whether the police were involved, whether the victim(s) wished to report the matter to the police, whether there were any witnesses, and if so, whether they were prepared to co-operate) might lead the COO to decide to proceed under the minor offence procedures.

With regard to the incident in question, although the circumstances had initially indicated that it should be treated as a major offence, issues had emerged during the investigation which had resulted in a decision being taken by the COO, in consultation with the Warden, the Senior Warden, and the Security Manager, to dispose of it as a minor case.

09/11 Major Offences 2008-09

DISC09-P8

The Committee received a summary of major offences dealt with by Student Disciplinary Panels in the 2008-09 academic year up to 29 May 2009. A further verbal update was provided by the secretary, on cases considered by Panels on 26 and 29 May 2009 (subsequent to the circulation of the agenda). The following points were noted in discussion:

(i) It might be appropriate in some cases for the Panel to recommend that a student found guilty of a disciplinary offence seek support such as counselling or anger-management therapy. However, unless it fell within bullet-point 8 of paragraph 3(iii)(a) of Ordinance XVII (“Attachment of such conditions as it thinks fit to the continued pursuit of the student’s studies, to the nature of his or her living accommodation and to his or her general conduct”) it would be for the student to decide whether to take this up.

(ii) In relation to the BUCS Hockey Finals cases, it was noted that:

(a) Charges had been brought against all of those against whom evidence existed, and significant efforts had already been made by the Security Section to identify others who had been involved in drunken and/or disorderly behaviour. Given the reluctance of those who had been interviewed to inform on their fellow students, it was unlikely that any further names would emerge. However, if they did, the COO would consider whether there was sufficient action to bring forward further charges.

(b) The University was involved in a dialogue with the Athletic Union (AU) about welcome events involving initiation ceremonies at AU clubs, and unacceptable behaviour at sporting events. It was understood that the AU would be taking action against those who had been found guilty by Student Disciplinary Panels of bringing the University into disrepute at the BUCS Hockey and Football Finals, and would ensure that club chairs and secretaries passed on the message that inappropriate behaviour at sporting events, by players or supporters, would not be tolerated.

(c) BUCS would be holding its own disciplinary procedures in relation to the Hockey and Football Finals, and it was possible that it would take some action over and above that taken by the University’s Student Disciplinary Panels.

(iii) In one case, involving the submission of a falsified record of previous academic achievement in support of an application for admission to a programme of study at the University, the Panel had recognised that the University was required to process a very large number of applications in a short period, but recommended nonetheless that measures to identify potentially fraudulent applications be put into place as quickly as possible. It was agreed that an update on this issue would be provided for the next meeting of the Committee. ACTION: Secretary.

09/12 Minor Offences 2008-09

DISC09-P9

12.1 The Committee received a summary of minor offences reported during the period 24 January 2009 to 22 May 2009. It was noted in relation to item 4 (threatening or intimidating behaviour), that a case involving the display of a Nazi symbol had been investigated initially as a major offence. However, the circumstances were such that a decision had been reached to treat it as a serious minor case. The three female students who had been distressed by the display of the symbol had been satisfied with the outcome, and the perpetrator had realised the seriousness of his behaviour.

DISC09-P10

12.2 The Committee noted a summary of minor offences reported in the 2008-09 academic year up to 22 May 2009. There was some discussion about the extent to which Authorised Officers, and Hall Wardens in particular were consistent in the imposition of penalties. It was noted, however, that:

(i) This issue had been considered by the Committee before, and it had been concluded that it was important to allow Hall Wardens some flexibility, rather than impose strict tariffs which would not allow differences in the detail of each case to be taken into account.

(ii) There was frequent contact between Hall Wardens on this matter.

(iii) Penalties imposed by the Community Warden tended to be more severe because these cases frequently involved significant disruption to members of the local community, and several earlier interventions by the Community Warden and/or the Security Section.

(iv) There appeared to be more consistency in the penalties imposed for minor offences in 2008-09 than in previous years.

It was agreed that in future reports, an alternative list of offences, sorted by Authorised Officer (rather than by Offence Type) should also be provided. ACTION: Secretary.

09/13 Valedictory

The Committee recorded its thanks to Danny McNiece and the other members of the Loughborough Students’ Union Executive, who had served on the Committee in 2008-09. Thanks for his longstanding contribution to the Committee were also offered to Roger Mayo, for whom this was likely to be his last meeting.

09/14 Dates of Meetings in 2009-10

3 November 2009, 2pm.

9 February 2010, 2pm.

8 June 2010, 10am.

09/15 Any Other Business

The Chair noted that it had been common practice for the COO’s nominee to join Student Disciplinary Panel meetings from the beginning, prior to the student against whom charges had been brought being called. The Chair felt that this arrangement had the potential to give the wrong impression as regards the relationship between the Panel and the COO's nominee, and to compromise the extent to which the Panel was seen as independent. It was also inconsistent with the procedures followed by other comparable University Committees, such as the Academic Misconduct Committee, and if challenged, was unlikely to meet with the approval of the Office of the Independent Adjudicator. The Chair noted that the Deputy Security Manager had raised some concerns about any change to the existing procedure, but felt that these could be addressed prior to, or at a hearing with all parties present. The Committee agreed, therefore, that for all future Panel meetings, the COO's nominee would be called in to the meeting at the same time as the student.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Author – C Dunbobbin