Swansea University

11. Procedure during the Meeting


In cases where two or more candidates are accused of related offences, such as in the case of collusion, the Chair may decide to deal with the cases together. However, each candidate must be given the opportunity to request that the cases be heard separately.  The decision will be made by the Chair.


The Director of Academic Integrity (or nominated deputy) shall present the case, on behalf of the University, against the candidate(s), calling such witnesses and presenting such evidence as he/she thinks fit.

The Director of Academic Integrity (or nominated deputy) may question both the candidate and witnesses. The candidate may question the witnesses called by the Director of Academic Integrity.


The candidate shall have the right to be represented or accompanied, to hear all the evidence brought against him/her, to call and question witnesses, and to submit other evidence. The Chair may invite contributions from the person accompanying the student.


Witnesses can only be concerned with evidence relating directly to the allegation and shall normally withdraw after questioning.  The Chair may wish to consider allowing witnesses to remain in the hearing throughout the procedures provided that both parties agree to this in advance or the Chair considers it pertinent to the case for a witness to remain.


Additional documentary evidence may only be presented to the Committee on the day of the hearing with the express permission of the Chair.  


When the submission of evidence and the questioning of witnesses are completed, all persons, other than the members of the Committee, the secretary and other Academic Services staff, if present, shall withdraw.


The Chair of the Committee may approve an adjournment of the hearing following a reasonable request from either party or from the Committee itself. For example, to gain further evidence, such as to obtain documentary evidence in support of an oral statement made or to test a student's knowledge of the work in question if there remains uncertainty that the work is the student's own work.


The Committee of Enquiry shall then consider whether on the basis of the evidence presented the allegation has been substantiated. The burden of proof (duty of proving the allegation) shall rest on the University and the standard of proof should be on the balance of probabilities: a fact will be established if it is more likely than not to have happened.  


The Committee of Enquiry shall not normally be informed, before reaching its verdict on the allegation under consideration, of any evidence of previously substantiated allegations of academic misconduct; the Committee should be so informed before determining the penalty in appropriate cases.

However, in exceptional cases, evidence of previous substantiated acts of academic misconduct may be disclosed prior to the verdict of the Committee where such evidence:

  • rebuts a claim of previous good character made by the candidate/representative;
  • is relevant to the allegation under consideration (other than merely showing that the candidate had a disposition to commit the facts alleged) and its prejudicial effect does not outweigh its probative value.


The Committee does not have to take intent into consideration. However, mitigation may be considered in relation to the penalty.


If the Committee finds that the case has been substantiated, it shall then consider the penalty to be imposed. Penalties are divided into:

  • Penalties available for academic misconduct in examination conditions (see 12).
  • Penalties available for academic misconduct under non-examination conditions (see 13).
  • Penalties available for academic misconduct in Research degrees (see 14)


If the Committee finds that the case has not been substantiated the candidate shall be informed of the outcome in writing. All record of the case shall be removed from the student's file.