Cambridge University Reporter


Court of Discipline: Notice

The Court of Discipline met on 2 November 2006 to consider a charge brought by the University Advocate on a complaint by the Senior Proctor against a Graduate Student of the University. The Court consisted of: Mr G. J. Virgo, DOW (Chairman); Dr J. C. D. Hickson, PEM, Professor I. M. Hutchings, JN, Dr G. Jondorf, G, Dr R. C. Love, R; with Mr A. Bennett, Clerk of the Court. On the application of the student, the Court consisted of senior members only and sat in camera.

The defendant was charged with an offence contrary to Regulation 6 of the General Regulations for Discipline, in that the student had used unfair means in an extended essay submitted as part of a Master of Philosophy Examination in 2006, specifically that the student had plagiarized from the work of another without due indication and had passed off the work submitted as the student's own.

The defendant pleaded guilty to the charge. The Advocate detailed the circumstances of the case; the defendant's representative presented the defendant's case.

The Court concluded that the charge brought by the Advocate was proved, that the offence was extremely serious, and that it regarded the offence as being one of the worst examples of plagiarism in a University examination. The Court noted the guilty plea to the use of unfair means; the Court wished it to be recorded that it had seriously contemplated that the student should be formally expelled and deprived of membership of the University, but it had been swayed by the mitigating circumstances outlined by the defendant's representatives.

The Court agreed to impose the following penalties: that the student should be disqualified from the Master of Philosophy examination concerned; that the student should not be allowed in the future to be a candidate for any degree, diploma, certificate, or other qualification of the University; and, that the student should not be allowed to appeal against the mark awarded for the examination paper in which the plagiarism arose, which mark the Court regarded as being entirely appropriate in the circumstances.