Student Conduct

• Student Code of Conduct 2024-25: English | Welsh
• Non-academic Misconduct Regulations 2024-25: English | Welsh
• Sexual Misconduct and Violence Policy 2024-25: English | Welsh

The procedures for 2024/25 and previous years’ regulations are available on request from the Student Casework Unit. Please email: [email protected].

Student Code of Conduct

• Removal of duplication throughout the Code with the Student Misconduct Regulations, and a centralisation of the list of possible breaches, to act as a more accessible reference document for students. A shorter section has been added at 4.3 to emphasise students’ obligations where misconduct is also a criminal offence.
• At 1.6, clarification that staff disciplinary procedures will be applied according to the case specifics as opposed to in all cases.
• Removal of Issues specific to the country of study (previously 6.3.9) from the Code as this was introduced for specific international partnerships and can be managed through the existing, non-exhaustive list of breaches. Often, this breach is being selected where it is not applicable.
• Addition of Section 5 - examples of misconduct specific to professionally registered courses (fitness to practise). This has been lifted from the Student Misconduct Regulations as it sits more appropriately under the Code.

Student Misconduct Regulations (previously, Non-academic Misconduct Regulations) 

• A key change throughout the Student Misconduct Regulations is the removal of duplication; where appropriate, readers are referred directly to the applicable Procedure. Otherwise, all information is contained within the Student Code of Conduct e.g. breaches under fitness to practise have been moved here.
• ‘Sanctions’ has been added as a standalone section and reordered to reflect the order of process for student misconduct.
• At 2.5, change from ‘any disciplinary or review hearing’ to ‘any case under these regulations’ in relation to findings being made on the balance of probabilities.
• At 2.6, addition of Head of Student Casework (or nominee) as the authority in admitting exceptions for raising allegations outside of the three-month timeframe.  
• At 2.8, the wording in relation to anonymous allegations is clarified.
• At 2.22, clarification is added that failure to disclose at the Admissions stage may still result in a student misconduct case being opened.
• At 2.24, wording is clarified in light of the purpose of the section, which is to cover instances where a student has correctly disclosed a criminal offence, but the nature of the offence means that there may have been a student misconduct related breach. 
• At 2.25, wording is aligned with process. Usually, internal disciplinary procedures will not commence while police action is ongoing. Where a deviation from this is required, this is decided in conjunction with the General Counsel and in consultation with the force, to ensure that there is no interference between university processes and ongoing police action. 
• At 2.25 d), process is amended; in light of the complexities surrounding sentencing, students are advised to re-apply through Admissions where they are automatically withdrawn for a custodial sentence of longer than six months / the duration of their course. 
• Addition of 2.28-2.29 to provide a regulatory basis for the holding of award/end-of-year result consideration in serious cases. This can be done by the Head of Student Casework (or nominee) in consultation with the student’s faculty.
• At 5.24, wording has been amended to reflect that reporting students and witnesses cannot request a Completion of Procedures letter.  Where reporting students or witnesses (who are students) are dissatisfied with the way in which the Procedure has been handled, they may be able to submit a complaint using the Student Complaints Procedure, as stipulated in section 3.6.

Risk Assessment Procedure

• At 13, reference to ‘preparing a defence’ has been removed as this would not usually be applicable.
• At 14, wording has been amended from ‘the suspension’ to ‘any precautionary action that has been put in place’, as students may feel they have been disadvantaged by actions other than just a suspension.
• Under Fast-track process, reference is added to straightforward re-evaluations of risk (i.e. Chair’s actions) as this is another circumstance in which the fast-track process could be used, as highlighted at point 16.
• Under Fast-track process, the Head of Student Casework (or nominee) is added as a decision maker in the fast-track process, to increase resilience in case of staff absences (point 24).
• Under Request for Review, grounds that must be demonstrated are added in line with the Procedure for Requests for Review, to ensure that only arguable cases are referred to a Review Panel.

Sexual Misconduct and Violence Policy

• At 11, wording is added around the convention of a Risk Assessment Panel following a disclosure, with signposting to the Risk Assessment Procedure.

Procedure for Stage 1: Non-Major Student Misconduct

• At 1, the definition of ‘non-major misconduct’ has been clarified to: ‘A matter may be dealt with under ‘Non-major student misconduct where it is deemed that there is potential to address alleged concerns without a formal investigation’.
• At 3, clarification is made that the Dean’s nominee’s decision will be made after the meeting and not during.
• A list of potential penalties to be administered at Stage 1 have been added, to align with Stage 1: Cause for Concern.
• At 4, clarification is added that where a case has already been investigated at Stage 2 and as a result has been referred back to Stage 1, a further referral to Stage 2 cannot take place.
• From 9 onwards, a request for review stage is added with grounds, further to OIA advice. Eligible request for reviews at stage 1 are proposed to be considered by someone in the faculty at the same level of seniority as the person making the original decision or higher.

Procedure for Stage 2: Investigations into Student Misconduct

• At 3, clarification is added that the Head of Student Casework (or nominee) in conjunction with the Faculty will decide whether a case sits at Stage 1 or Stage 2.
• At 4, clarification that an investigation will commence as soon as possible where appropriate, as opposed to an investigation will begin as soon as an allegation is received.
• At 18, addition of reference to Investigating Officer deciding whether they need to interview witnesses.
• At 20, clarification that the Dean’s nominee may decide, based on an Investigating Officer’s report, that no allegations are upheld and close the case.
• At 20, clarification that it is for the Dean’s nominee to implement a stage 1 sanction (where applicable) on reviewing an Investigating Officer’s report, rather than referring back to stage 1 / Cause for Concern for a further meeting to take place. 

Procedure for Requests for Legal Representation

• This procedure has been generally restructured to remove duplication and to reflect the fact that students may request legal representation for all procedures, at all stages of the process. This is not to say such representation will be accepted but provides a basis on which to consider such requests.
• Timescales for requesting legal representations in relation to hearings are amended, to ensure internal deadlines are not compromised (additional notice is required for hearings to allow time to respond to the request before the hearing). 
• 8 is reworked slightly, given the student themselves may not be responsible for paying legal costs (this could be by a parent, for example). 

Procedure for Stage 2: Disciplinary Hearings

• At 23, clarification that a hard copy of a hearing outcome would only be issued where a student had expressed this as a preference. Removal of overly legalistic wording.
• Signposting to other procedures (Procedures for Requests for Legal Representation; Procedure for Stage 3) has been added.

Procedure for Stage 3: Requests for Review of Stage 2 Disciplinary Outcomes (previously, Procedure for Requests for Review)

• At 2, clarification that separate processes exist for Stage 1 Student Misconduct/Cause for Concern, Student Complaints, Academic Appeals and Risk Assessment Panel decisions and confirmation that those processes are contained within each Procedure.
• At 6, there is a change in wording from University Secretary (or nominee) to Head of Student Casework (nominee), as the initial review for eligibility would sit more appropriately under Student Casework and allow for potential escalation.
• Clarification that the initial eligibility stage will consider whether the student’s request for review has sufficiently demonstrated the grounds to warrant further consideration. 
• Removal of reference to ‘vexatious or frivolous’ grounds as this would not usually be applicable.
• At 7, clarification that the initial eligibility review is not deciding whether the student has grounds but whether it meets the criteria to be considered.
• At 14, clarification that a hard copy of a hearing outcome would only be issued where a student had expressed this as a preference. 
• From 15 onwards, addition of wording around issuing Completion of Procedures letters following a request for review.

The General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) have now replaced the Data Protection Act. An explanation of how the University will use your data can be found here and in the Communication Plan at the top of this page. Please note that in accordance with GDPR Regulations any third-party supporting evidence will only be accepted if it is accompanied by a completed Third-Party Consent Form (available under Forms).