Student Discipline Committee

DISC05-M2

Minutes of the Ninth Meeting of the Student Discipline Committee held on 5 July 2005

Members: Dr J E Davies (Chair), J B C Blood (ab), G Chivers, Dr H P Drake, D Green (ab),
R M King, S A Mason, R H Mayo, J E Mutton (ab), J Roberts, J Scott (ab), M Shuker,
Professor J B Thomas

By invitation: T W Cartwright, R J Kennedy, J M Town

In attendance: D L Wolfe

Apologies for absence: J B C Blood, D Green, W E Llewellyn, J E Mutton

8. Minutes (DISC05-M1)

Minute 2.2 having been amended to read “In some cases, students did not recognize that they had a mental health problem, or were in denial”, the minutes of the Eighth Meeting of the Committee held on 20 April 2005 were confirmed.

9. Matters Arising from the Minutes

.1 Medical Reports (DISC05-M1, Min 2 refers)

The Registrar explained that under the Data Protection Act information gathered for one purpose could not be used for another without permission. The Committee felt it was not appropriate to seek to amend the University’s registration with the Information Commissioner, nor its own registration procedures, to have blanket permission to use medical information in disciplinary cases. The Registrar emphasized nonetheless that he was entitled by virtue of his position to have access to such information, and that Departments did not have the right to withhold pastoral information from him.

It was noted that, similarly, a “Case Conference” could not be held without the student’s consent.

.2 Students’ Union Disciplinary Policy (DISC05-M1, Min. 3 refers)

It was felt that clearer guidance was needed on when LSU officers should refer disciplinary issues to the University. The Registrar felt it was particularly important that the University be made aware of violence and assault, and whenever the Police were called – even if there was no subsequent action. Clearly there were some cases when a suitable penalty was not available to the Union.

It was AGREED that the Vice-President (Democracy and Internal Affairs) should draft Guidelines and consult with the Registrar, the Case Officer, and the Chair of the Committee.

10. Timescale for Dealing with Major Offences

.1 (DISC05-P4; DISC05-P6)

The Committee received a schedule of Major Offences considered by Disciplinary Panels since its inception in 2002, together with a proposal to speed up procedures where a student had admitted an alleged offence. It was noted that the procedure for suspending students from the University pending a hearing was completely separate, and invoked only when the student was considered to be a significant risk to the safety of other members of the University, or where there was a risk of interference with witnesses.

The Committee welcomed any attempt properly to expedite procedures, whilst recognizing the need for due process. It emphasised that students should have the right to be accompanied at all stages, and felt that Paragraph Nine of the discussion paper, which referred to sentences/penalties being influenced by a guilty plea, should be deleted, so that such a procedure should not necessarily be formalised.

In so far as the proposed changes to Ordinance XVII were concerned, it was felt that seven working days was too short a period in which to arrange a hearing, and it was AGREED to recommend to Senate that this be changed to ten working days. With this single amendment it was RESOLVED to support the proposals.

11. Procedure for Suspending Students

The Case Officer reported that a student recently suspended from the University had ignored the suspension, and had continued to visit the campus. Procedures had been tightened so that suspension letters were now hand-delivered, their intention fully explained, and all potentially interested parties advised e.g. Head of Department, Warden, Student Accommodation Services, Computing Services, Library.

12. Comments from Student Disciplinary Appeals Committee (DISC05-P6)

The Committee AGREED a request from the Student Disciplinary Appeals Committee that reasons be given as a matter of course for decisions taken by Student Disciplinary Panels. The Committee also AGREED to advise the Student Disciplinary Appeals Committee, as appropriate, of the rationale for imposing a particular penalty.

The Secretary was asked to remind the Head of the Wardens’ Service and the Director of Student Guidance and Welfare of the requirements under Ordinance XVII that students be invited to defend themselves prior to a penalty being imposed.

13. Clarification of Penalties (DISC05-P7)

The Committee was advised that on a number of occasions Disciplinary Panels had imposed penalties which had included the withdrawal of services provided by the University for which students paid a fee. In some cases students had sought a pro rata refund, and it had become apparent that some fees were automatically forfeit and others were not.

Whilst the Committee was sympathetic to Disciplinary Panels’ intentions that fees should sometimes be forfeit, it did not have the expertise to comment on the various contracts between the University and individual students.

Accordingly, the Registrar AGREED to instigate a review of contracts with students to include, inter alia, tuition, accommodation, sports facilities, computing.

14. Racist Incidents

The Committee noted that current advice to students who were the victims of racist incidents was to report the incident to the Police. The Security Organisation would investigate alleged on-campus incidents, and alleged student on student incidents, but was unable to act when the alleged perpetrator was a non-student and the incident took place off campus. The Director of the Security Organisation indicated that the message to students to complain to the Police was beginning to have an effect.

Whilst not being complacent, the Committee was pleased to note that there had been only two racist incidents reported to the Students’ Union during the current year.

15. Minor Offences (DISC05-P8)

The Committee received details of Minor Offences (excluding traffic) committed during the current academic year.

It was AGREED to advise the Head of the Wardens’ Service as follows:

.1 The penalty for having an unauthorized guest in Hall, particularly over a prolonged period of time, should be reviewed.

.2 Penalties for interfering with fire safety equipment were low and variable. Typically LSU fined students £150 for such transgressions, and it was felt this was an appropriate level of penalty.

16. Discipline and Fining in Hall (DISC05-P9)

The Committee noted guidelines used by Wardens. It was felt that suspended fines, whilst a useful sanction, should not be allowed to become multiple suspended fines. The Secretary would advise the Head of Wardens’ Service and Director of Student Guidance and Welfare accordingly.

17. Other Business

.1 Community Service was now managed by the Case Officer, who could arrange appropriate placings. It was AGREED to advise the Head of Wardens’ Service.

.2 It was AGREED to consider the feasibility of identifying the notional cost of Disciplinary Hearings, and passing them on in whole or in part to guilty students.

18. Vote of Thanks

The Committee recorded its thanks to Jonathan Roberts and Graham Chivers for their positive contribution to its work over the past year.

19. Date of Next Meeting

Tuesday 22 November 2005 at 11.00 am.