The Court of Discipline met on 10 November 2008 to consider seven charges brought by the Deputy University Advocate under Statute B, VI, 28 on a complaint by the Senior Proctor against a Graduate Student of the University. On the application of the student, the Court consisted of senior and junior members, and sat in camera. The Court consisted of: His Honour Colin Colston QC, TH (Chairman); Dr R. Love, R; Dr M. Nicholls, JN; Ms D. Lynchehaun, CAI; Mr J. Varuhas, SID; with Mr A. Bennett (Secretariat) as Clerk of the Court. The defendant was not present during the proceedings and was represented by Professor D. Ibbetson, CC.
The defendant was charged with offences contrary to Regulation 6 of the General Regulations for Discipline, in that the student had used unfair means in seven assignments submitted as part of a Master of Philosophy Examination in 2008. The defendant, through the defendant's representative, pleaded guilty to the charges. The Advocate outlined the circumstances of the case; the defendant's representative presented the defence case and addressed the Court in mitigation.
The Court noted that the student faced seven charges of using unfair means in an examination. The charges were grave examples of plagiarism; significant parts of the student's submissions had been lifted from the work of other candidates, had not been attributed, and had been passed off as the student's own work. The Court regarded the case as a very serious example of plagiarism, which should be severely punished since plagiarism undermines integrity of the examination system and devalues degrees of the University, if they are obtained by cheating.
The Court determined that sentence should be as follows, in accordance with the provisions of Statute B, VI, 11(b):
| (i) | the student should be disqualified from the Master of Philosophy Examination concerned; |
| (ii) | the student should not be allowed to be a candidate for any degree, diploma, certificate or other qualification of the University in the future. |
The Court further ordered that the student should not be allowed to seek review or appeal of the result of the Examination, nor be allowed otherwise to seek an allowance, under the relevant University regulations, for the Examination concerned.