Student Discipline Committee

DISC10-M2

Minutes of the meeting of the Student Discipline Committee held on 8 June 2010.

Members: A M Mumford (Chair), J Blackwell, J B C Blood, S A Brown, H Chambers , L Davidson, F T Edum-Fotwe, F Fay (ab), N Honey (ab), R Hulme, R M King, J Morgado (ab), A Muir, J Oliver, C Peel, M Shuker (ab), R Smith (ab), R Spokoini (ab), J A M Strong, J B Thomas (ab), A Watson (ab).

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

In attendance: C Dunbobbin, B Parkinson (in place of J Morgado).

Apologies for absence: F Fay, N Honey, J C Nutkins, S W Spinks, J B Thomas, N Thomas.

________________________________________________________________

10/11 Minutes
DISC10-M1

The minutes of the meeting held on 9 February 2010 were confirmed as a true record.

10/12 Matters Arising from the Minutes

Serious Criminal Offences and the Role of the Student Discipline Committee

The Committee noted that two further cases which had been considered by Risk Assessment Panels were due to be heard by Student Disciplinary Panels, and agreed the following:

(i) That it was particularly important in cases where students were charged with conduct constituting a criminal offence that the charge was framed correctly, bearing in mind that Student Disciplinary Panels would not always be equipped, as a court would, to judge whether a student had committed a criminal offence. The onus was on the Chief Operating Officer and nominees to ensure that charges were appropriately worded, but the secretary should also conduct a check before notifying the student.

(ii) That procedures in this area would be reviewed further at the second or third meeting of the Committee in 2009-10, in the light of the experience of dealing with these and any further cases.

10/13 Amendments to Ordinance XVII Conduct and Discipline of Students

DISC10-P7

The Committee considered a number of proposed amendments to Ordinance XVII. These were intended to enhance existing processes and had arisen primarily in response to advice received from Martineau Solicitors during a training session for Committee members in February 2010. The Chair and secretary had already met with Emma Dresser of LSU Voice and Chris Peel to discuss a number of the proposals, and they had been supportive.

The Committee approved all of proposed amendments, as described in the paper, except as below:

(i) Examples of Major Offences – Conviction of a Serious Criminal Offence

In order not to restrict the Chief Operating Officer’s discretion in determining which cases to refer for action under the Major Offence procedures, it was agreed that the word “serious” should not be used. i.e. the new specific example of a Major Offence under section 3(i)(a) should be: “Conviction of a criminal offence, howsoever, wheresoever and whensoever arising.”

(ii) Adjournments

It was agreed:

(a) That because section 3(ii)(e) of the Ordinance gave Panels a general discretion over the conduct of hearings, it was unnecessary and potentially problematic for the Ordinance to refer explicitly to one particular area of discretion (i.e. adjournments) when many others were not referred to.

(b) That it would be helpful for future Chairs if there was guidance or training on the use of adjournments and on other procedural issues in relation to which Panel’s might be required to exercise discretion. ACTION: Chair/Secretary

The following points were also noted:

(iii) Mitigation

It was agreed:

(a) That students found guilty of Major Offences, following full-hearings, should be reminded of the penalties available to the Panel before being invited to submit evidence of any mitigating factors.

(b) That students charged with Major Offences should be advised that they must submit supporting evidence (e.g. a letter from a tutor or a doctor’s note) of any mitigating circumstances that they wish to be taken into account.

(iv) Re-hearings in the event of a procedural irregularity

It was agreed that no immediate action would be taken to follow up Martineau’s suggestion that the Ordinance be amended to provide for there to be a re-hearing by a fresh panel in the event of a procedural irregularity in the consideration of a case. This had not arisen as an issue to date.

(v) Accompanying Individuals

It was agreed that further consideration should be given to Martineau’s suggestion that the Ordinance be amended to impose restrictions on the range of people permitted to act as accompanying individuals. A paper on this issue, taking account of further advice from Martineau as appropriate, and practice elsewhere in the sector, would be brought to the next meeting. ACTION: Chair/Secretary

10/14 Paperwork for Student Disciplinary Panels

The Committee confirmed its view that the memorandum, sent by the Security Manager/Deputy Security Manager to the Chief Operating Officer, containing a summary of the alleged offence, should not be included as part of the documentation circulated to Student Disciplinary Panels. It was noted, however, that in many fast-track cases, the memorandum represented the entirety of the written documentation supporting the charge, and in such cases the Panel had been entirely reliant on the verbal presentation by the COO’s nominee at the Panel meeting. It was agreed, therefore, that for fast-track cases, the Security Manager/Deputy Security Manager would always include formal records of interviews with the accused student and any witnesses so that these could be circulated to Panel members. ACTION: RJK, JRT

10/15 Disciplinary Problems and Notice to Quit in University Accommodation

DISC10-P8

The Committee received an extract from the April 2010 Office of the Independent Adjudicator newsletter, referring to potential problems in removing students from accommodation during or following disciplinary proceedings. It was noted that Panels had always been very mindful of these issues when considering penalties which involved removing students from their accommodation. It was agreed that the Chair would forward the advice to appropriate internal recipients. ACTION: Chair

10/16 Major Offences 2009-10 (up to 1 June 2010)

DISC10-P9

The Committee received a summary of major offences dealt with by Student Disciplinary Panels in the 2009-10 academic year up to 1 June 2010.

10/17 Minor Offences

DISC10-P10

The Committee received a summary of minor offences reported during the period 30 January 2010 to 19 May 2010. The following points were noted:

(i) The Chair had asked the Director of Student Services, earlier in the 2009-10 academic year, to remind hall wardens of the need for consistency across halls in the imposition of penalties.

(ii) That many of the cases had been dealt with by the Security Manager or Deputy Security Manager. This was not made clear in the paper.

(iii) The Security Manager indicated that there had been a greater exchange of information between the Security Section and the Police and Charnwood Borough Council. This had resulted in more incidents being brought to the attention of the Security Manager, and an increased Minor Offence workload.

(iv) The number of traffic and parking offences was lower than in previous reports. This was attributable to a number of factors including an easing of the pressure on parking spaces in some sections of the campus with the opening of the multi-storey car park. The Security Section had also experienced some administrative difficulties which had resulted in some cases going over time, and not being pursued.

10/18 Membership

The Committee expressed its thanks to the retiring LSU members. The Chair thanked all members for their contributions during the 2009-10 academic year.

10/19 Dates of Meetings in 2010-11

2 November 2010, 2pm

8 February 2011, 2pm.

7 June 2011, 10am.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Author – C Dunbobbin