Joe
At UCL our grounds for appeal are:-
1. that the irregularity was not conducted in accordance with laid down
procedures
2. that fresh evidence has become available which was not, and which could
not reasonably have been, made available to the Panel considering the
irregularity
3. that the penalty was excessive in relation to the offence ( in such
grounds the 'appellant' must state why he/she believes the penalty to be
excessive)
I hope this is helpful
Pauline
At 11:15 27/11/98 +0000, you wrote:
>Do any mailbase members have any advice or comment to offer on the
>following issue?
>
>The University's regulations concerning cheating in exams/plagiarism
>allow students who are found guilty by the Senate Investigating
>Committee which considers such cases a right of appeal to an ad hoc
>appeal committee appointed by the Senate. The current regulations,
>though, do not elaborate upon the grounds for an appeal, and this has
>led to some students lodging appeals which have turned out to be
>no more than re-trials going over the same evidence and
>arguments as in the original hearing. Unsurprisingly this has given
>rise to some expressions of dissatisfaction on the part of those
>members of staff obliged to serve on the appeal committees.
>
>So there seems to be a clear need to expand the regulations to make
>clear acceptable grounds for appeal. These could obviously include
>the presentation of new evidence not available to the original
>Investigating Committee, or any evident procedural failing on its
>part. Has anyone any further comments or suggestions, or lessons to
>pass on from experience?
>
>Many thanks for any replies received.
>
>Joe Taylor
>Assistant Registrar
>Academic Office
>University of Warwick
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|