Reports

Joint Report of the Council and the General Board on a revised student disciplinary framework*

The Council and the General Board beg leave to report to the University as follows:

1. The Council and the General Board, in Lent Term 2014, established a Review Committee on Student Discipline to review the University’s student disciplinary procedures. Certain changes to student discipline recommended by the Review Committee were implemented following the approval of Grace 6 of 15 July 2015. The Review Committee then turned its attention to establishing a procedure to deal with cases of student harassment and sexual misconduct and revisions to the student complaints procedure, and proposals were approved by Grace 3 of 22 February 2017 and Grace 3 of 5 July 2017. This Report presents the final part of the review and submits a revised student disciplinary framework for approval.

2. The Review Committee has engaged with internal and external stakeholders and has conducted collegiate University-wide consultations on the principles of a revised student disciplinary procedure in Easter Term 2018 and the proposed procedure itself in Lent Term 2019, which have informed the proposals now submitted for approval. The Report’s recommendations have been developed with the input of the officers of Cambridge University Students’ Union and the Graduate Union, the Senior Tutors’ Committee, the University Advocate and the Proctors, and have been endorsed by the General Board’s Education Committee.* The review has also taken account of sector guidance and the Good Practice Framework on Discipline Procedures, published by the Office of the Independent Adjudicator, the external ombudsman, in November 2018.1

3. The proposals seek to achieve the following:

(a)place the main responsibility for student discipline within the purview of the General Board, with the Council and the Regent House maintaining oversight through an overarching framework in Ordinance;

(b)lower the standard of proof from the criminal standard (beyond reasonable doubt) to the civil standard (on the balance of probabilities) (see paragraphs 4–8 below);

(c)a separation of student conduct rules from those applicable to other members of the University, by establishing new rules of behaviour for registered students, taking those students outside the scope of the General Regulations for Discipline;

(d)transfer the consideration of allegations of misconduct concerning the falsification of awards by formerly registered students to the remit of the student disciplinary panels (unless the student in question is also an employee and the allegation concerns conduct in that capacity);2

(e)put in place a new student disciplinary procedure with the following features:

(i)the introduction of Student Discipline Officers as the first level of decision-makers, replacing some of the functions currently residing with the University Advocate, who would no longer have any role in student discipline, and the Proctors, who would play a different role as members of the Appeal Committee;

(ii)the introduction of an Investigating Officer as the person responsible for the investigation of student discipline cases, replacing other investigatory functions currently residing with the University Advocate and the Proctors;

(iii)a smaller Discipline Committee of three members, including a student member, to consider cases referred to it by the Student Discipline Officer and presented by the Investigating Officer;

(iv)a smaller Appeal Committee of three members to consider appeals against decisions made by the Discipline Committee, replacing the Septemviri as the appeal body in student disciplinary cases;

(v)a process that is appropriate for an internal disciplinary procedure whilst continuing to apply the rules of natural justice (for example, by advising that legal representation is not necessary but nevertheless giving respondent students the right to be accompanied by a legal adviser to investigative meetings and hearings if they wish). Under the revised framework, an inquisitorial model would be adopted, so that a decision can be made on the evidence included in the Investigating Officer’s report.

A flow chart of the proposed Student Disciplinary Procedure and draft role descriptions for the Student Discipline Officers and the Investigating Officer are provided for information in Annex C.

4. The standard of proof currently applied in student disciplinary cases is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.3 If the recommendations of this Report are approved, all student disciplinary cases will be considered against a lower standard of proof (on the balance of probabilities).

The proposed lower standard of proof requires a determination that something is more likely than not to have happened, the decision must be supported by evidence, and it is a higher standard than simply believing something has happened. It is the standard of proof most commonly applied in student disciplinary cases concerning both academic and other forms of misconduct in other universities in the UK, as well as those used by employers and other professional organisations in the UK.

5. Amongst the most strongly argued points in the consultation responses were concerns about the handling of cases of sexual misconduct under the new student disciplinary process. The University already has experience of dealing with such cases under both the University’s current disciplinary procedure and the non-disciplinary Procedure on Student Harassment and Sexual Misconduct. The premise of the guidance for higher education institutions, issued by Universities UK in 2016, on how to handle alleged student misconduct which may also constitute a criminal offence4 is that universities must have procedures in place that are capable of dealing with such cases, whilst acknowledging that they will be challenging. The new framework proposed in this Report draws on existing experience of handling such cases and aims to ensure that the University has a robust process in place that is compliant with sector-wide guidance and in line with good practice. The procedure also aims to be easy to follow and transparent about the decision-making process and the matters that will guide it.

6. The Council and the General Board acknowledge that changing the standard of proof will not be a panacea that will resolve the complexities that these cases present. The advice given to complainants and respondents in cases of sexual misconduct already stresses the differences between the criminal process and the University’s internal disciplinary process, including the more limited investigation that the University will be able to undertake, with no access to forensic analysis and no power to compel witnesses (including the respondent) to give evidence, and the prejudicial effect a University investigation may have on a subsequent complaint to the police. However, many of those who supported the change during the consultation cited the negative impact of the higher standard of proof on the reporting of cases of harassment and sexual misconduct. Comments from students indicated that they were willing to support a change to a lower standard for all types of misconduct in order to encourage reporting of sexual misconduct cases. There has been considerable support within the collegiate University for ‘Breaking the Silence’, the campaign aimed at preventing coercive behaviour, harassment and sexual misconduct. This change to the standard of proof is therefore proposed as a measure in support of increased reporting and, more broadly, the University’s commitment to a policy of zero tolerance for such behaviour.

The University will continue to recognise that the criminal process takes priority. It will also continue to consider whether there is a breach of its regulations if it is clear that the matter is not being dealt with under the criminal process or where the criminal process has concluded, as recommended by the UUK guidance. The Council and the General Board recognise that it is important for the University to retain its discretion to investigate an allegation of sexual misconduct even if, after investigation, the absence of evidence or other factors mean that the decision is taken by the University not to pursue the matter.

7. The Council and the General Board recognise that it will be essential for the University to continue to manage the expectations of students and others to ensure that those expectations are grounded and realistic. The University’s powers of investigation and more generally under its student disciplinary procedure cannot replicate those of the police and the criminal justice system, and there are likely to be cases where, due to a lack of evidence, it will not be possible to take a matter through the University’s student disciplinary procedure.

8. The amendment to the standard of proof has elicited strong opinion on both sides during both consultations, but the majority has been in favour of change, with 86% of the 229 responses in the most recent consultation supporting the lower standard (these included a significant proportion of the responses from students). The Council and the General Board therefore recommend the adoption of that lower standard, for the reasons given in paragraph 5, but propose that a ballot should be called, with separate votes on the change to the lower standard of proof and on the other proposals included in this Report (see the separate Notice on a timetable for the ballots, p. 528).

9. The main changes submitted for approval by this Report are summarised below:

(a)A new version of Special Ordinance D (ii) is put forward in Annex A that sets out the main pillars of a new student disciplinary framework, including:

(i)the authority for the General Board to establish and keep under review rules of behaviour concerning the conduct of Registered Students and Formerly Registered Students and a student disciplinary procedure;

(ii)the responsibilities of the Student Discipline Officers, who would commission an investigation and have authority to make certain decisions arising from that investigation’s findings, including the ability to impose minor sanctions or measures;

(iii)the remit and membership of a revised Discipline Committee and a new Appeal Committee;

(iv)the standard of proof.

(b)Changes to Statute D II, as set out in Recommendation I, are proposed to bring the falsification of awards by formerly registered students within the jurisdiction of the student disciplinary panels, as noted in paragraph 3(d), and to remove references to the use of the Septemviri in connection with student disciplinary appeals. The opportunity is also being taken to make changes to Statute D II, to replace the authority to temporarily rusticate, exclude or fine students who disrupt or impede disciplinary proceedings with confirmation that such students may be subject to precautionary action under Special Ordinance, and to update the terminology in relation to student discipline.

(c)A new Ordinance setting out Rules of Behaviour. The Rules of Behaviour incorporate a definition of plagiarism and would be accompanied by new guidance. These would supersede the University-wide statement on plagiarism, which would therefore be rescinded.

(d)Consequential changes to Special Ordinances and Ordinances that would be made under Recommendation II are set out in Annex A. These would remove references to the University Advocate and the Septemviri in relation to student discipline, and to the Discipline Board, which would be disbanded, and would separate out matters concerning the University Tribunal from those concerning student discipline. None of the proposed amendments to Statute D II is directly linked to the new student disciplinary framework. Therefore, if approved, the changes to the Special Ordinances and Ordinances would come into force on 1 October 2019, independently of any approval of the changes to the Statute.

10. If the recommendations of this Report are approved, the revised Student Disciplinary Procedure that would be adopted by the General Board is set out in Annex B. Other consequential changes that would be made by the Council and the General Board are also set out in Annex B.

The General Regulations for Discipline would be retained and would continue to apply to members of the University (including former registered students) for matters that fell outside the scope of the Rules of Behaviour. Any cases concerning allegations of misconduct by formerly registered students under those General Regulations would continue to be within the jurisdiction of the University Tribunal.

The changes are to take effect from 1 October 2019. The following transitional arrangements have been included in the proposals. Where allegations concerned conduct that took place before 1 October 2019, the regulations in force at the time of the conduct would be applied to determine whether a breach had occurred (i.e. the General Regulations for Discipline in force at the time of the alleged misconduct), and the respondent would be offered a choice of the case being determined under the procedure in force from 1 October 2019 or the procedure in force at the time of the conduct (i.e. the Student Disciplinary Procedure in Annex B, or the process currently in place under Special Ordinance D (ii) for alleged misconduct occurring between 4 July 2018 and 30 September 2019, or under previous iterations before 4 July 2018).

11. The Council and the General Board recommend:

I.  That, subject to the approval of Her Majesty in Council, the Statutes of the University be amended as set out below and that these amendments be submitted under the Common Seal of the University to Her Majesty in Council for approval, to come into effect on a date approved by the Council.

That in Statute D II (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 28) Sections 2, 10, 11, 12 and 15^# be amended to read as follows and the cross-references updated:

2. The University Tribunal shall adjudicate, in accordance with the provisions of this Statute, when a University officer, a member of the Senate, or a person who is not a registered student who holds either a degree or the title of a degree is charged with an offence against the discipline of the University, or with grave misconduct, save that a University disciplinary panel established under Section 11 shall adjudicate where all allegations concern conduct during the period in which that person was pursuing a course of study leading to the award of a degree, diploma or certificate of the University, or any related matter as determined by Ordinance.

10. Notice of a meeting of the Septemviri or the University Tribunal shall be given to the Head of the College of which the person charged or making an appeal is a member.

11. The regulation of student discipline, including the constitution of University disciplinary panels for that purpose, shall be as determined by Special Ordinance. These panels shall have no jurisdiction over the Chancellor, the High Steward, the Deputy High Steward, or the Commissary. Such panels shall have power to make rules of procedure except in so far as such rules may have been determined by Statute or Ordinance; provided that, if any question of law or interpretation or application of any of the rules of procedure arises during the course of a hearing, or if a question of procedure arises which cannot be resolved by reference to those rules, the matter shall be decided by the Chair, whose decision shall, for the case which is being heard, be final.

12. If an allegation of academic misconduct in an examination has been brought against any person before a University disciplinary panel and if such person’s qualification for the award of a degree, diploma or certificate is or includes success in that examination, it shall be at the discretion of the Chair of such panel to order that he or she shall not be admitted to the degree, or receive the diploma or certificate, until the disciplinary proceedings have been completed, notwithstanding that he or she may have done all that is required by Statute or Ordinance for the award of the degree, diploma, or certificate. If the disciplinary panel finds that the accused person has committed an act of academic misconduct, it may advise the Vice-Chancellor to issue a notice amending the class-list for the examination or other list of approved candidates, or to issue an amended list superseding the original list; the Vice-Chancellor shall act in accordance with the advice of the disciplinary panel or, if an appeal is made, in accordance with the decision of the disciplinary appeal panel.

^#15. If any registered student intentionally or recklessly disrupts or impedes the proceedings of any of the aforesaid courts or other disciplinary panels, precautionary measures, as established under Special Ordinance, may be imposed.

II. That, with effect from 1 October 2019, the amendments to Special Ordinances and Ordinances as set out in Annex A be approved.

III. That, with effect from 1 October 2019, the standard of proof applied in student disciplinary proceedings be amended from beyond reasonable doubt to on the balance of probabilities.5

8 May 2019	Stephen Toope, Vice-Chancellor	Jennifer Hirst	Michael Proctor
	Sam Ainsworth	Fiona Karet	Sofia Ropek-Hewson
	Evie Aspinall	Christopher Kelly	Andrew Sanchez
	R. Charles	Mark Lewisohn	Jason Scott-Warren
	Sharon Flood	Marcel Llavero Pasquina	Sara Weller
	Anthony Freeling	Jeremy Morris	Mark Wormald
	Nicholas Gay	Richard Penty	Jocelyn Wyburd
	David Greenaway

8 May 2019	Stephen Toope, Vice-Chancellor	A. L. Greer	Helen Thompson
	Philip Allmendinger	Matthew Kite	Graham Virgo
	Abigail Brundin	Patrick Maxwell	Mark Wormald
	John Dennis	Richard Rex	Chris Young
	Abigail Fowden	Sofia Ropek-Hewson

 

ANNEX A

(a) By rescinding existing Special Ordinance D (ii) (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 94) and replacing it with the following:

SPECIAL ORDINANCE D (ii):

Student discipline (Special Ordinance under Statute D II 11)

1. The General Board shall establish and keep under review:

(a)rules of behaviour concerning the conduct of Registered Students and Formerly Registered Students;

(b)a student disciplinary procedure for academic and non-academic misconduct relating to Registered Students and Formerly Registered Students;

(c)the responsibilities of Student Discipline Officers, appointed in accordance with Section 2 below;

(d)the student disciplinary panels for the regulation of student discipline, which shall comprise a Discipline Committee and an Appeal Committee, constituted in accordance with Sections 3 and 4 below;

(e)the training to be undertaken by Student Discipline Officers and members of the Discipline Committee and Appeal Committee.

2. (a) The Student Discipline Officers shall be two members of the Regent House appointed by Grace on the nomination of the General Board with responsibility for commissioning an investigation into a potential breach of the Rules of Behaviour, deciding whether to refer the matter to another procedure and determining whether a Registered Student’s criminal convictions require the University to take further action, one of whom shall be designated the Student Discipline Officer and the other the Deputy Student Discipline Officer. The Deputy Student Discipline Officer shall be called upon to act in circumstances where the Student Discipline Officer is unavailable or has a conflict of interest.

(b) The Student Discipline Officer shall reach one of the following decisions following investigation:

(i)to impose a minor sanction or measure where the Student Discipline Officer is satisfied that a breach of the Rules of Behaviour has occurred and that a minor sanction or measure is appropriate;

(ii)to refer the case to the Discipline Committee where the Student Discipline Officer considers that a breach of the Rules of Behaviour may have taken place and that a minor sanction or measure may not be an appropriate sanction;

(iii)where neither (i) nor (ii) is appropriate:

(1) to take no further action;

(2) to refer the matter for decision under another University procedure.

3. (a) The Discipline Committee shall determine whether the Rules of Behaviour have been breached or a Registered Student’s criminal conviction requires the University to take further action following referral of a case by the Student Discipline Officer and, where it determines that this has taken place, shall have the authority to impose sanctions or measures.

(b) The Discipline Committee shall comprise three persons as follows, assigned by lot to hear a case from among those available who have been appointed to a panel for that class by the General Board:

(i)a Chair, who shall be experienced in decision-making relating to misconduct, either through legal training or in relation to student, staff, or professional procedures;

(ii)a member of the Regent House;

(iii)a Registered Student or a sabbatical officer of Cambridge University Students’ Union or the Graduate Union.

4. (a) The Appeal Committee shall determine whether an appeal against a decision of the Discipline Committee is upheld or dismissed.

(b) The Appeal Committee shall comprise three persons as follows, assigned by lot to hear a case from among those available, in the case of classes (i) and (ii) from among those who have been appointed to a panel by the General Board:

(i)a Chair, who shall be experienced in decision-making relating to misconduct, either through legal training or in relation to student, staff, or professional procedures;

(ii)a member of the Regent House;

(iii)a Proctor, Deputy Proctor, or Pro-Proctor.

5. When making a decision to impose a sanction or measure under the student disciplinary procedure, the Student Discipline Officer, the Discipline Committee and the Appeal Committee shall take into consideration any disciplinary action taken by a College to ensure that a Registered Student or Formerly Registered Student is not punished twice for the same misconduct.

6. The standard of proof to be used when making determinations under the student disciplinary procedure shall be on the balance of probabilities.

7. The University shall act reasonably in considering alleged breaches of the Rules of Behaviour under the student disciplinary procedure, having regard to the individual circumstances of the case. Every effort will be made to ensure that all parties are treated with fairness and dignity. None of those carrying out the procedure will have any previous knowledge of the case nor any material connection with any party to the alleged breach.

8. The Council and the General Board shall receive a report annually on the number, type, and outcomes of cases and appeals considered under the student disciplinary procedure, together with any recommendations concerning the procedure.

(b) By rescinding Special Ordinance D (iii) 6 (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 96).

(c) By amending Special Ordinance D (iv) (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 97) to read as follows, retaining all footnotes, and updating all cross-references:

SPECIAL ORDINANCE D (iv):

The University Advocate; Miscellaneous Provisions

(Special Ordinance under Statute D)

1. Evidence that a person has been convicted of an offence by or before any court of law, or that any court of law has found proved an offence with which a person was charged, shall, for the purpose of proving that he or she committed the offence or was guilty of any act or conduct in respect of which he or she was so charged or convicted, be admissible in any proceedings before any court established by Statute D or any Special Ordinance under Statute D.

2. Any notice required by Statute D, or by Ordinance or regulation made under it, to be sent to any person may be sent to the address supplied to the Registrary by her or his usual or last known address.

3. If the time for which any member of one of the aforesaid courts has been appointed expires after a charge or appeal has been brought before the court but before it has been disposed of, such member shall (and her or his successor shall not) be a member of the court for the purpose of hearing and determining that charge or appeal.

4. If, after a charge or appeal has been brought before any of the aforesaid courts but before it has been disposed of, one or more members of the court become unable or unwilling to act, the remaining members of the court may continue the hearing and determine the case notwithstanding that they do not constitute a quorum for that court.

5. Any person who is deprived of membership of the University or whose membership of the University is suspended shall not, during the continuance of such deprivation or suspension, be eligible to be admitted to any degree, or to receive any diploma or certificate, or to be a candidate for any examination; and any person upon whom a penalty other than deprivation or suspension of membership of the University is imposed under any of the provisions of Statute D or any Special Ordinance made under it and who fails to comply with the terms of such penalty shall not be eligible to be admitted to any degree, or to receive any diploma or certificate, or, except with the consent of the Council, to be a candidate for any examination.

6. Every complaint against a person who comes within the jurisdiction of the University Tribunal (other than a complaint against a University officer under the Schedule to Statute C) which requests that a matter be made the subject of proceedings before that body shall be considered by the University Advocate, provided that only a member of the Regent House shall be entitled to make a complaint alleging that a person who comes within the jurisdiction of the University Tribunal has committed grave misconduct, and that only a member or an employee of the University shall be entitled to make a complaint alleging that a person who comes within the jurisdiction of that body has committed a breach of the general regulations for discipline or other offence against the discipline of the University. It shall be the duty of the Advocate to determine whether the person against whom the complaint is made shall be charged and if so before which body; provided that the Advocate shall reject any complaint

(a)if it does not specify the name, and College (if any), of the person against whom it is made; or

(b)if in the Advocate’s opinion the evidence presented is not sufficient to enable her or him to decide whether the person should be so charged; or

(c)if in the Advocate’s opinion a complaint is vexatious, frivolous, or trivial; or

(d)if in the Advocate’s opinion a complaint of grave misconduct is not of sufficiently direct concern to the University to justify its being brought before the University Tribunal.

No proceedings shall be initiated before any of the University courts established by Statute D or any Special Ordinance under Statute D, other than proceedings under the provisions of Chapter I of the Schedule to Statute C unless the Advocate has so determined in accordance with this section and with any Ordinance made under Statute D.

(d) By establishing the following in Ordinance:

Rules of Behaviour for Registered Students and Formerly Registered Students

All registered and formerly registered students are responsible for following the Rules of Behaviour. Not knowing or forgetting about the rules or their consequences is not a justification for not following them.

1. A registered student must:

(a)comply with instructions issued by any person or body authorised to act on behalf of the University, in the proper discharge of their duties;

(b)comply with all health and safety regulations and instructions issued by the University, a College or other associated institution;

(c)inform the University of any relevant unspent criminal conviction;

(d)comply with the terms of the code of practice issued under the provisions of section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 regarding meetings and public gatherings on University Premises;

(e)comply with the Statutes and Ordinances and any rules and procedures established under the Statutes and Ordinances.

2. A registered student must not:

(a)interfere or attempt to interfere in the activities of the University, a College, or any member of the collegiate University community in the pursuit of their studies or in the performance of their duties;

(b)damage, misappropriate or occupy without appropriate permission any University or College property or premises, or any property or premises accessed as a result of a College or University activity;

(c)interfere in the freedom of speech or lawful assembly of a member of the collegiate University community or visitor to the University;

(d)engage or attempt to engage in physical misconduct, sexual misconduct or abusive behaviour: towards a member of the collegiate University community; or towards anyone within the precincts of the University1 or during the course of a University or College activity;

(e)damage or misappropriate property belonging to a member of the collegiate University community; or belonging to anyone within the precincts of the University or during the course of a University or College activity;

(f)endanger the health and safety of anyone within the precincts of the University or in the course of a University or College activity;

(g)engage in any form of academic misconduct;

(h)forge, falsify or improperly use information to gain or attempt to gain an academic or personal advantage.

3. A formerly registered student must not forge, falsify or improperly use examination results, academic achievements, data, documents, or awards from the University.

4. The following definitions are applied under the Rules of Behaviour:

(a)A ‘formerly registered student’ is a person who has previously had the status of a registered student.2 Where a formerly registered student is also an employee of the University and the alleged misconduct concerns conduct in that capacity as employee, the matter shall not be dealt with under the student disciplinary procedure and shall be referred for consideration under the relevant staff disciplinary procedure.

(b)‘Activities of a University or a College’ include activities in which a student is participating that involve other organisations working in partnership with the University or a College. A non-exhaustive list of examples of such organisations are other higher education institutions, research institutes, research funders, collaborators, and work placement settings.

(c)‘Physical misconduct’ is any unwanted and unreasonable contact. Physical misconduct includes pinching, punching, kicking, slapping, pulling hair, biting, pushing, shoving, using weapons and using items as weapons.

(d)‘Sexual misconduct’ is any unwanted and unpermitted sexual activity. Sexual activity includes sexual acts, kissing, sharing private sexual materials of another, touching through clothes, showing sexual organs and remarks of a sexual nature. Sexual misconduct can take place in physical or virtual environments.

(e)‘Abusive behaviour’ is any unwanted behaviour which is reasonably likely to cause harm; or have the effect of violating another’s dignity; or create an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for that other. It includes threats, abusive comments, the use of or supply of illicit substances, making malicious accusations, repeatedly contacting someone, and abuse that takes place within an intimate relationship. Abusive behaviour can take place in physical or virtual environments.

(f)The word ‘unwanted’ means ‘unwelcome’ or ‘uninvited’. It is not necessary for a person to object to the behaviour for it to be unwanted.

(g)The word ‘unpermitted’ means ‘not permitted’ or ‘unauthorised’. A number of behaviours can indicate where permission has been given, for example, verbal comments or physical actions. Permission for an activity can only be given at the time it is taking place and where the person has the choice to give or not give permission. Where there is disagreement as to whether an activity was unpermitted, the applicable test shall be, taking all circumstances into account, whether a reasonable person would consider the activity was unpermitted.

(h)‘Academic misconduct’ is gaining or attempting to gain, or helping others to gain or attempt to gain, an unfair academic advantage in formal University assessment, or any activity likely to undermine the integrity essential to scholarship and research. It includes being in possession of unauthorised materials or electronic devices during an examination, including recording or communication devices or devices that can store data, even where the Registered Student is unaware that such materials or devices are unauthorised, has no intention of using them, or is unaware that they have them in their possession. Academic misconduct also includes:

•Plagiarism: using someone else’s ideas, words, data, or other material produced by them without acknowledgement;

•Self-plagiarism: using the Registered Student’s own ideas, words, data or other material produced by them and submitted for formal assessment at this University or another institution, or for publication elsewhere, without acknowledgement, unless expressly permitted by the assessment;

•Contract cheating: contracting a third party to provide work, which is then used or submitted as part of a formal assessment as though it is the Registered Student’s own work;

•Collusion: working with others and using the ideas or words of this joint work without acknowledgment, as though it is the Registered Student’s own work, or allowing others to use the ideas or words of joint work without acknowledgment;

•Impersonating someone or being impersonated in an examination or arranging for someone to impersonate someone else by sitting their examination;

•Fabrication, falsification or misrepresentation of data, results or other outputs or aspects of research, including documentation and participant consent, or presenting or recording such data, etc, as if they were real; or

•Failure to meet legal, ethical and professional obligations in carrying out research. This includes failure to follow agreed protocol if this failure results in unreasonable risk or harm to humans, other sentient beings or the environment, and facilitating of misconduct in research by collusion in, or concealment of, such actions by others. It includes any plan or conspiracy to attempt to do any of these things.

(i)‘Instructions issued by any person or body authorised to act on behalf of the University’ include requests to attend meetings, to provide identification upon request, and to share primary datasets or data analysis with a supervisor.

(j)A ‘College or University activity’ is an academic, sporting, social or cultural activity either within the Precincts of the University or elsewhere in the context of a person’s membership of the University.

(k)A ‘relevant’ unspent criminal conviction includes a conviction for the following:

•Any kind of violence including (but not limited to) threatening behaviour, offences concerning the intention to harm or offences which resulted in at least actual bodily harm.

•Sexual offences, including those listed in the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

•The unlawful supply of controlled drugs or substances where the conviction concerns commercial drug dealing or trafficking (drug offences only involving possession are not relevant offences).

•Offences involving firearms.

•Offences involving arson.

•Offences involving terrorism.

If a student was convicted outside the United Kingdom for the type of offence listed above, this is also considered a relevant conviction.

For the purposes of this definition, out of court disposals are considered to be convictions. Penalty notices for disorder (PNDs), anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs) or other orders are not considered to be convictions, unless contesting a PND or breaching the terms of an ASBO or other order has resulted in a criminal conviction. Whether or not an offence is considered ‘spent’ is defined by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 and subsequent revisions to the Act.

(l)‘The code of practice issued under the provisions of section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986’ relates to meetings and public gatherings on University premises. The Code of Practice is available at: https://www.cambridgestudents.cam.ac.uk/new-students/rules-and-legal-compliance/freedom-speech.

(m)‘Rules and procedures established under the Statutes and Ordinances’ include: procedures that govern student conduct; regulations governing information services, motor vehicles, bicycles and boats; and the payment of fees and fines.

(n)‘Registered student’, ‘respondent’, ‘reporting person’, ‘witness’, and ‘collegiate University community’ have the same meanings as they are given in the Student Disciplinary Procedure.

5. Any breach of the Rules of Behaviour may be considered more serious if:

(a)it took place under the influence of alcohol or illicit substances;

(b)it was motivated by the protected characteristics3 or perceived protected characteristics of another;

(c)the respondent has previously been found to have breached the same Rule of Behaviour;

(d)the respondent has not complied with any sanction or measure under the Student Disciplinary Procedure;

(e)the respondent has breached precautionary action measures whilst the Student Disciplinary Procedure has been ongoing;

(f)the respondent has not provided the University with reasonable information upon request so that it can assess the risk the respondent may pose to the collegiate University community;

(g)the respondent has attempted to conceal or destroy evidence, or coerce or intimidate officers, reporting persons or witnesses, in relation to that breach;

(h)the respondent has abused a position of power or trust.

(e) By deleting Regulation 11 of the General Regulations for Discipline (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 193), removing the footnote attached to Regulation 6(b), and revising the preamble and Regulation 7 to read as follows:

In accordance with the University’s duty to maintain good order and discipline within the University, the following regulations shall apply only to members of the University within the jurisdiction of the University Tribunal under Statute D II 2:

7. No member of the University shall assist a candidate in any form of academic misconduct against the Rules of Behaviour for Registered Students and Formerly Registered Students.

(f) By inserting the following sentence at the end of the Regulation for Fines (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 196):

A request for review of a decision to impose a fine by a registered student (or a person who at the time of the imposition of the fine was a registered student) shall be made under the Procedure for the Review of Decisions of University Bodies established by the General Board.

(g) By amending Regulations 3 and 8 of the regulations for Motor Vehicles (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 196) to read as follows:

3. A licence shall normally be valid until the end of the academical year in which it is issued but it may be suspended or revoked at any time by the Senior Proctor. A member in statu pupillari who is dissatisfied with a decision to suspend or revoke that member’s licence may request a review of that decision. A request for review shall be made under the Procedure for the Review of Decisions by University Bodies established by the General Board.

8. The Senior Proctor shall have power to impose a fine not exceeding £175 for an offence against any of these regulations or for a breach of any condition made by the Senior Proctor under Regulation 6. A member in statu pupillari (or a person who at the time of the imposition of the fine was a member in statu pupillari) can request a review of a decision to impose a fine. A request for review shall be made under the Procedure for the Review of Decisions by University Bodies established by the General Board.

(h) By amending the regulations for the Initiation of proceedings before the University Tribunal, the Discipline Committee, or the Discipline Board (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 199) to read as follows:

Initiation of proceedings before the University Tribunal

1. Any proceedings against a person to whom the Schedule to Statute C applies shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter III of that Schedule. Proceedings against any other member of the University before the University Tribunal shall be subject to the provisions of Special Ordinance D (iv) 6.

2. (a) If the Vice-Chancellor has directed under the Schedule to Statute C, Chapter III 8, that a charge is to be preferred against a person to whom the Schedule to Statute C applies, the case shall be presented by the University Advocate.

(b) If in response to a complaint made under Special Ordinance D (iv) 6 the University Advocate determines that proceedings shall be brought against a member of the University before the University Tribunal, the case shall be presented either by the Advocate or by the complainant, as may be decided by the Advocate; provided that, if a charge arises from a complaint made by the Proctors, the Advocate shall be responsible for presenting the case on behalf of the University.

3. The Advocate shall give written notice to the Registrary and to the complainant of the decisions taken in accordance with Special Ordinance D (iv) 6 and Regulation 2(b) above; if the Advocate decides that a person is to be charged, written notice shall be given to the Secretary of the appropriate court.

4. If a member of the University is alleged to have committed an act or to have engaged in conduct for which he or she is liable to be prosecuted in a court of law and which is also a breach of the general regulations for discipline or other offence against the discipline of the University, the Advocate may, at her or his discretion, determine whether or when to bring a charge under the University’s regulations, after taking into account whether, in her or his opinion, any proceedings against the member in a court of law in respect of that act or conduct are likely to be brought, and any other factors which appear relevant to her or him.

5. In these regulations all references to conviction in a court of law shall mean that the court has found that the offence charged has been proved and that the person so charged has not been acquitted either upon trial or upon appeal.

(i) By rescinding the regulations for the Appointment of members of the Discipline Committee (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 202), the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 204), and the regulations for the Discipline Board (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 204).

ANNEX B

(a) By establishing the following in General Board Regulations:

Student Disciplinary Procedure

1. Glossary of key terms

1.1 In this procedure, the following terms shall have the meanings set out below:

Appeal Committee	A panel of three trained persons, two assigned by lot from a panel appointed by the General Board, and one Proctor, Deputy Proctor or Pro-Proctor, which determines whether an appeal against a decision of the Discipline Committee is upheld or dismissed, with the authority to amend, quash or impose sanctions or measures
Collegiate University Community	All Registered or Formerly Registered Students, other matriculated persons, all members of the Regent House, and all University and College employees, workers, staff or secondees, visiting scholars and visiting students
Completion of Procedures letter	A letter that confirms the completion of the University’s internal procedures, following which a student may be able to raise a complaint with the Office of the Independent Adjudicator
Concern	The description of the behaviour causing concern, reported by the Reporting Person and submitted using a Concern Form
Discipline Committee	A panel of three trained persons, assigned by lot from panels appointed by the General Board, which determines whether the Rules of Behaviour have been breached or whether a Registered Student’s criminal conviction requires the University to take further action and, if so, has the authority to impose sanctions or measures
Formerly Registered Student	A person who has previously had the status of a Registered Student.1 Where a Formerly Registered Student is also an employee of the University and the alleged misconduct concerns conduct in that capacity as employee, the matter shall not be dealt with under the student disciplinary procedure and shall be referred for consideration under the relevant staff disciplinary procedure
Impact Statement	A written statement from a Reporting Person or Witness that describes the personal impact of an alleged breach of the Rules of Behaviour
Investigating Officer	A person who meets the criteria outlined from time to time by the General Board with responsibility for conducting an investigation into a potential breach of the Rules of Behaviour and presenting the investigation findings to a Discipline Committee
Investigation Report	The report created by the Investigating Officer following an investigation
OSCCA	The Office of Student Conduct, Complaints and Appeals
Registered Student	Any person who has accepted an offer to study or is currently pursuing a course of study at the University; or a person who had such student status at the time of the circumstances about which the Concern is being raised. Visiting Students are covered by the terms and conditions of their contract
Reporting Person	A person who is reporting a Concern about a Registered Student or Formerly Registered Student
Respondent	A Registered or Formerly Registered Student whose conduct is the subject of a Concern
Rules of Behaviour	The rules established by the General Board concerning the conduct of Registered Students and Formerly Registered Students
Student Discipline Officer	A trained member of Regent House who meets the criteria outlined from time to time by the General Board, appointed by Grace, with responsibility for: commissioning an investigation into a potential breach of the Rules of Behaviour; determining whether a Registered Student’s criminal conviction requires the University to take further action; or deciding the University course of action following an investigation, with the authority to impose a minor sanction or measure
Witness	A person who has witnessed the Respondent’s behaviour or has witnessed a matter connected to the Respondent’s behaviour as alleged in the Concern. The Witness may be someone to whom the behaviour was directed, or a third party

2. Scope and principles

2.1 This procedure enables the University to consider whether a Registered Student or Formerly Registered Student has breached the Rules of Behaviour and, if it is found that the Rules have been breached, to impose proportionate sanctions or measures. The procedure enables the University to respond appropriately to breaches of the Rules of Behaviour, to protect the University and the Collegiate University Community. It does not exist to resolve personal disputes.

2.2 The University can investigate and take action even where a Registered Student has since graduated or stopped pursuing a course of study. However, it will be necessary for the University to consider whether a matter can practicably be investigated and whether it is appropriate to do so, noting the limitations on the potential sanctions or measures available.

2.3 This procedure is an internal process and does not have the same degree of formality as proceedings in a court of law. It is not normally necessary or appropriate for a Respondent or the University to be legally represented at any meetings that form part of the procedure apart from in exceptional circumstances. However, Respondents may access and use legal representatives, at their own cost, in relation to this procedure.

2.4 The procedure itself can be stressful for those involved. The Investigating Officer and decision-makers will take into account the potential effects upon those engaging with the procedure and, where possible, minimise these effects. All Reporting Persons, Respondents and Witnesses will receive information about how to access support during this process. The appropriate support will depend on the circumstances of the case, but may be delivered by a College, the University, the Students’ Unions’ Advice Service or external support organisations.

2.5 Reasonable adjustments shall be made to the procedure to allow fair access for students with a disability. Respondents, Reporting Persons and Witnesses are requested to make any reasonable adjustments known to the Investigating Officer so that these can be put in place. The Investigating Officer may seek expert opinion regarding reasonable adjustments to ensure appropriate implementation. The Investigating Officer shall keep a record of any such adjustments.

2.6 In order to ensure that a Respondent’s views are accurately represented during the process it is preferable for the University to correspond directly with the Respondent. However, it is accepted that sometimes this will not be in the best interests of the Respondent, for example, where a Respondent is reluctant to make or receive decisions about a Concern without support, as a result of an underlying medical condition or disability. Where a Respondent would prefer correspondence to be directed through an authorised representative, permission needs to be provided by the Respondent in writing or via the Respondent’s University email account. Where this is appropriate, the Respondent will be given reasonable time to arrange this support.

2.7 It will not normally be possible for the Reporting Person to submit a Concern anonymously, apart from in exceptional circumstances where there is a compelling case as decided by the Student Discipline Officer, supported by evidence, for the matter to be investigated. Where an anonymous Concern is accepted, the Concern will normally be accompanied by independent evidence enabling an investigation to take place without the involvement of the anonymous Reporting Person.

2.8 Concerns are ideally submitted in a timely manner, so that matters can be dealt with effectively. However, it is accepted that this is not always possible, for example where evidence of academic misconduct only becomes apparent after a significant period of time, or where a matter has significantly impacted an individual and the effects of this impact has led to a delay in reporting. There is no arbitrary deadline for the submission of a Concern, or a time limit based on whether someone who was a Registered Student at the time of the alleged breach of the rules remains a Registered Student when the Concern is submitted. The timeframe may however have an impact on the investigation, decisions, and potential sanctions or measures.

2.9 The University must investigate and consider Concerns in a timely manner, providing reasonable deadlines at each stage of the process for decision-makers to provide decisions and for Respondents, Reporting Persons and Witnesses to provide information. The University normally aims to complete the initial investigation and Discipline Committee decision within 60 days of informing the Respondent of the Concern. However, delays may occur where the case is complex, the Reporting Person, Respondent or Witnesses are not available to attend meetings, or where the procedure has been suspended for good reason. Respondents and Reporting Persons will be provided with updates where there is a delay.

2.10 Witnesses are expected to engage fully with the procedure, as far as is reasonable in the circumstances.

2.11 Where reasonable, physical meetings can be replaced by virtual meetings, where a Respondent, Reporting Person or Witness may attend a meeting by video or telephone call at the discretion of the Investigating Officer or Chair of the Committee.

2.12 All decision-makers and investigators will receive appropriate training to undertake their role and be appropriately resourced and supported. No decision-maker or investigator will have any previous involvement with the matter that they are considering, or personal knowledge of the people involved. To avoid the reasonable perception of bias, decision-makers and investigators will not be a member of the same College or Department as the Respondent or the Reporting Person.

2.13 Any reference in this procedure to a University officer or other named role includes a deputy appointed by that officer or role-holder to exercise the functions assigned to that officer under this procedure.

2.14 Some breaches of the Rules of Behaviour could also constitute criminal offences. The University will not normally investigate a matter where criminal proceedings are ongoing (including criminal investigations and appeal processes), pausing any action under this procedure until criminal proceedings are complete. Where criminal proceedings are instituted after action under this procedure has begun, the University will normally pause such action until the criminal proceedings are complete. Following an investigation undertaken by the police and any subsequent criminal proceedings, where it appears unlikely that criminal proceedings will take place, or where the behaviour being investigated by the University is different to the behaviour being considered through criminal proceedings, the University may take its own action under this or another procedure.

2.15 The University will treat relevant police fines, cautions, reprimands, final warnings2 or criminal convictions received by the Respondent as evidence that the behaviour, on which the offence was based, took place. A ‘not guilty’ or ‘no further action’ outcome from the police or criminal proceedings will not prevent the University from undertaking its own investigation as to whether a breach of the Rules of Behaviour has occurred.

2.16 Sometimes a Concern will be more appropriately investigated under another procedure, for example, the Procedure to Determine Fitness to Study, if the behaviour has been wholly caused by an underlying medical condition, or the Procedures to Determine Fitness to Practise for students undertaking professional courses, where the requirements for student behaviour are stricter. It will be at the discretion of the Student Discipline Officer, in consultation with relevant University Officers, to decide which procedure is most appropriate to investigate student behaviour. The University reserves the right to refer a matter to another procedure at any time during this procedure. Sometimes a Concern will be appropriately investigated under this procedure but nonetheless, following the outcome, it will be necessary to refer the matter to another procedure, for example to refer a matter to the Procedures to Determine Fitness to Practise, to consider the Respondent’s ability to continue on a professional course of study where a breach of the Rules of Behaviour has been found. If a breach of the Rules of Behaviour has been found, this will be treated as evidence that the breach of the Rules of Behaviour has occurred but there may be other elements of a Respondent’s ability to study that cannot be considered under this procedure.

2.17 Some breaches of the Rules of Behaviour will also be in breach of a College’s Statutes and Ordinances and may result in the Respondent’s College taking disciplinary action. The University shall take into consideration any action taken by the College to ensure that the Respondent is not punished twice for the same breach. However, even where the College chooses to take no action, it may still be appropriate for the University to take its own action, following consultation with the College.

2.18 Where a Concern involves more than one Respondent, it will be at the discretion of the Investigating Officer to decide whether the Concern should be separated into separate investigations for some or all of the Respondents. Where an investigation includes more than one Respondent and the Student Discipline Officer has chosen to refer the matter to the Discipline Committee, the Chair of the Discipline Committee shall have the discretion to decide whether there shall be a single hearing for all of the Respondents, or a separate hearing for each Respondent. Where a hearing involving multiple respondents takes place, the personal mitigation of each Respondent, unless it refers to the other Respondent(s), shall not be shared with the other Respondent(s). Where multiple Respondents appeal the decision of the Discipline Committee decision appeals shall usually be considered separately but by the same Appeal Committee.

2.19 Special Ordinance D (v) concerning Precautionary Action permits the Academic Secretary to put precautionary measures in place where an investigation is ongoing and when it is necessary to do so in the circumstances. It is the responsibility of OSCCA, where appropriate, to ensure updates relating to this procedure are provided to the Academic Secretary and College to ensure that the ongoing risk can be monitored.

2.20 While the procedure is ongoing, a Respondent must not contact or attempt to contact the Reporting Person or any other Respondent or Witness to the alleged misconduct either directly or via another person. Except where precautionary action precludes it, Respondents may continue to pursue and complete their studies, including graduating, unless informed otherwise by the Student Discipline Officer.

2.21 The University owes a duty of care to all members of the Collegiate University Community, including Reporting Persons, Witnesses and Respondents, to safeguard the interests and safety of the Collegiate University Community.

2.22 Respondents, Witnesses, Reporting Persons and their supporters and representatives, as well as decision-makers and investigators, are required to communicate and act respectfully and reasonably at all times whilst using the procedure and to treat the processes with respect. Abusive behaviour will not be tolerated. If, following a warning, someone continues to behave in an unacceptable manner, that person may be subject to separate disciplinary action. The person may be required by a decision-maker to stop engaging with this procedure or engage in a limited manner, even if this impacts upon the consideration of the Concern or a subsequent appeal.

2.23 Except as set out in paragraph 3.9, the Reporting Person or Witness cannot challenge a decision not to proceed with a disciplinary case under this procedure, or the decision of the Student Discipline Officer or Discipline Committee. However, if there are concerns about how the matter was handled or the process used in reaching a decision then a Reporting Person or Witness who is a student may be able to make a complaint under the Student Complaints Procedure.

2.24 The standard of proof used when making determinations under this procedure is on the balance of probabilities. The burden of proof that a breach of the Rules of Behaviour has occurred rests with the University. This means that it is necessary to prove that it is more likely than not that a breach of the Rules of Behaviour occurred before the decision-maker can impose any sanctions or measures on the Respondent. Decisions must be supported by evidence; it is not enough simply to believe that something is likely to have happened. This requirement means that there may be some cases in which the University decides that it is not appropriate to take or continue action under this procedure.

Information sharing

2.25 OSCCA shall share the information and evidence related to an investigation and outcome with members of staff, the Respondent, the Reporting Person and Witnesses where it is strictly necessary to do so in order to process, investigate, and/or determine the outcome of an alleged breach of the Rules of Behaviour, or to implement any sanctions or measures following a finding. All information received from a Reporting Person, Respondent, Witness or staff member will be handled sensitively and in accordance with the University’s Data Protection Policy.

2.26 The University shall share all evidence considered in reaching a decision (except where the decision-maker determines that there is a compelling reason not to do so), the decision itself, the reasons for the decision and any sanctions or measures, with the Respondent. The evidence considered in reaching a decision may not be shared with the Respondent where the identity of the Reporting Person, or the identity of a Witness, or personal data or special category data belonging to another has been provided, where that person does not wish that data or identity to be shared and there is a compelling case for the matter to be investigated without revealing this information to the Respondent. A compelling case may include where the information is of no relevance to the Concern and therefore it does not need to be relied upon. Any student affected by such a decision can request a review using the Procedure for the Review of Decisions of University Bodies. Where information is unable to be shared with the Respondent, this may affect the decision-maker’s ability to rely on this evidence in reaching a decision. Where evidence is not relied upon by the decision-maker, this will be specified in the reasons for the decision.

2.27 The University shall share the initiation of an investigation, the investigation findings and the reasoned determination of the Student Discipline Officer or Discipline Committee, including any sanctions or measures, with the Respondent’s College Senior Tutor (if the Respondent is a member of a College) and the Respondent’s Head of Department. Where relevant, the University shall also share this information with internal bodies (for example a fitness to practise committee), regulatory bodies (for example, the Disclosure and Barring Service), professional bodies (for example, the General Medical Council), or other organisations with whom the student may be connected, where it is appropriate to do so (for example, where the student holds a position of responsibility for children or vulnerable adults). Where formally requested to do so, or where the University considers that someone may be at significant and immediate risk of harm, the University may disclose information received through this procedure to the police. When initiating an investigation, the Investigating Officer will inform the Respondent in writing that information about the case will be provided to the police if formally requested by the police or if the Student Discipline Officer considers that there is an immediate and significant risk to the Collegiate University Community.

2.28 The University shall share relevant information from the investigation findings, the reasoned determination of the Student Discipline Officer or Discipline Committee, and sanctions or measures with the Reporting Person and Witnesses, where they have been personally affected by the original incident or the disciplinary process. ‘Relevant’ information is that which it is reasonably necessary to share in order to safeguard the interests of the Reporting Person or Witness.

2.29 It is necessary that all parties feel able to engage fully with the procedure without concern for the wider sharing of information disclosed within the investigation process. Following the conclusion of the procedure, those involved may discuss their personal experience of the procedure with others. However, regardless of the outcome, parties should not identify or provide details that might identify any individual involved in the investigation or subsequent decision-making process. Sharing identifying information could result in disciplinary action.

3. Submitting a Concern

3.1 The University will normally be informed of a potential breach of the Rules of Behaviour by a Reporting Person. The Reporting Person may be a person who has been impacted by the reported behaviour, witnessed the reported behaviour or became aware of the reported behaviour through other means.

3.2 For Concerns relating to academic misconduct in examinations, the Reporting Person may be a supervisor, invigilator or other person officially engaged in the examination process, who shall have confiscated any unauthorised material or device before contacting the Investigating Officer without delay. For Concerns relating to other types of academic misconduct, the Reporting Person may be a person engaged in the academic assessment process who has met with the Respondent to ascertain whether there is evidence of poor scholarship to be handled by the Department, or whether there is an allegation of academic misconduct which requires a Concern to be raised. The Reporting Person may also be any person who becomes aware that academic misconduct may have occurred.

3.3 A prospective Reporting Person can contact OSCCA to request a preliminary meeting with the Investigating Officer to understand the procedure.

3.4 To submit a Concern, the Reporting Person must complete and submit the Concern Form, together with any evidence the Reporting Person wishes to provide, to the Investigating Officer.

3.5 The Investigating Officer shall communicate with the Reporting Person to acknowledge the Concern that has been received, to request further information where the Concern Form is incomplete, and to offer the Reporting Person a preliminary meeting if one has not already taken place.

3.6 The Concern Form will be presented by the Investigating Officer to the Student Discipline Officer who will consider whether the following criteria are met:

(a)there is an allegation that, on the face of it, would appear to breach the Rules of Behaviour;

(b)this procedure is the most appropriate procedure to use to investigate the matter; and

(c)the Concern has not already been investigated using this procedure.

3.7 Where all the criteria have been met, the Student Discipline Officer shall commission an investigation into the Concern. Where at least one of the criteria has not been met, the Student Discipline Officer shall not commission an investigation under this procedure, although he or she may refer the matter for investigation under another University procedure in line with paragraph 2.16.

3.8 Where part of the Concern has previously been investigated, it is at the discretion of the Student Discipline Officer whether it is in the University’s interest to investigate the aspect that has not yet been investigated, taking into account why the matter was not previously fully investigated, the length of time that has elapsed since the investigation, the severity of the misconduct, the impact on the Respondent of undergoing a second discipline investigation, and whether there would be repercussions for the Respondent’s fitness to practise were the decision taken not to investigate the matter.

3.9 The Student Discipline Officer shall give written reasons for the decision about whether to commission an investigation and the Investigating Officer shall communicate the decision and the reasons to the Reporting Person in writing, within 7 days of receiving the Student Discipline Officer’s decision. Reporting Persons who are students may be able to seek a review of a decision not to commission an investigation, or about the scope of the proposed investigation, under the Procedure for the Review of Decisions of University Bodies within 14 days of being notified of the decision.

3.10 Subject to the outcome of any review process as set out in paragraph 3.9, where an investigation is not commissioned and where the Concern is not withdrawn by the Reporting Person, the Respondent shall normally be notified in writing of the Concern, the decision of the Student Discipline Officer, the reasons for the decision, and confirmation that no further action will be taken under this procedure. This notification shall normally be provided to the Respondent within 7 days of the Student Discipline Officer’s decision, or where the Reporting Person is a student, within 7 days of the deadline for seeking a review or following the completion of a review. However, where sharing this information with the Respondent may impact upon an investigation being undertaken under a different procedure or by an external body, a delay to informing the Respondent may be necessary.

4. Investigating a Concern

4.1 Where an investigation is commissioned, the Investigating Officer shall write to the Respondent to confirm that a Concern naming the Respondent has been received, the nature of the alleged behaviour, the relevant Rules of Behaviour that have allegedly been breached and the decision of the Student Discipline Officer to proceed with an investigation. The Investigating Officer will provide a brief summary of the Concern, name the Reporting Person (unless, exceptionally, an anonymous Concern has been accepted), and describe the investigation process, the possible outcomes, including referral to other procedures, for example fitness to practise, and who may need to be informed of these outcomes. The Investigating Officer will inform the Respondent and the Reporting Person of the avenues of support available to them and the potential consequences if the Concern relates to alleged misconduct that may constitute a criminal offence.

4.2 The Investigating Officer shall conduct an investigation which may require written statements, meetings and evidence from any member of the Collegiate University Community relevant to the investigation. In addition, the Investigating Officer may request written statements, meetings and evidence from anyone outside of the Collegiate University Community. Written notes shall be taken of all investigative meetings. Any person required to attend an investigative meeting will be able to bring a supporter and/or representative of their choice to the meeting and will be directed to appropriate sources of support. At the meeting they can present written information, evidence and the names of any Witnesses and shall have the opportunity to comment on the Investigating Officer’s written notes of any meeting that they have attended.

4.3 The Investigating Officer shall normally meet with the Reporting Person and with the Respondent to receive an oral account of the circumstances leading to the Concern, to receive relevant evidence relating to the Concern and the names of any Witnesses. The Reporting Person and Respondent should not attempt to investigate the matter themselves (and therefore should not make contact with each other or any Witness), instead providing all potential relevant information to the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer may meet with any Witnesses or instead collect information through written statements and other types of evidence. The Investigating Officer shall give anyone impacted by the alleged behaviour being investigated the opportunity to provide an Impact Statement.

4.4 In addition to investigating the Concern itself, the investigation shall include gathering information about and investigating the seriousness of the Concern, any mitigation provided by the Respondent and any relevant previous breaches of the Rules of Behaviour by the Respondent. During the investigation, it may be necessary to request further information and responses from those who have already provided oral or written accounts. Information the Investigating Officer may consider collecting, where relevant and available, includes validating information that has been provided by others, records of correspondence, CCTV evidence, medical evidence from qualified medical practitioners, and records of online activity. This is a non-exhaustive list and the Investigating Officer may request any information the Officer considers will provide value to the investigation. The University does not have the resources to undertake its own forensic investigation and therefore, unless this type of information already exists, the Investigating Officer shall not normally seek it. The University also has no power to compel the Respondent, the Reporting Person or any Witness to provide evidence.

4.5 The Investigating Officer may also require Respondents to engage in expert assessment(s) to assess the level of risk they present to themselves, members of the Collegiate University Community, anyone within the Precincts of the University, and anyone with whom the Respondent comes into contact whilst engaged in study. Where a Respondent does not engage with the process this may make any breach of the Rules of Behaviour more serious, as outlined in Regulation 5 of the Rules of Behaviour. In addition, not engaging with the process is likely to separately breach Regulation 1(a) of the Rules of Behaviour and further disciplinary action may be taken. Where a Respondent does not engage with an expert assessment, commissioned to assess the level of risk associated with the Respondent, the Investigating Officer may assume that there is a high level of risk associated with the Respondent. Any action taken must be proportionate to the circumstances; however, the level of risk may be relevant to any precautionary action taken, or to any sanction or measure imposed by the Student Discipline Officer, Discipline Committee or Appeal Committee.

4.6 The Investigating Officer shall produce an Investigation Report, outlining the findings of the investigation. The Investigating Officer will share a copy of the Investigation Report and all evidence with the Student Discipline Officer.

5. Student Discipline Officer decision

5.1 The Student Discipline Officer shall consider the Investigation Report and evidence from the investigation. At the Student Discipline Officer’s discretion, the Investigating Officer may be asked to obtain further evidence or to clarify any aspect of the Investigation Report.

5.2 The Student Discipline Officer shall reach one of the following decisions:

(a)To impose a minor sanction or measure where the Student Discipline Officer is satisfied that a breach of the Rules of Behaviour has occurred and that a minor sanction or measure is appropriate;

(b)To refer the case to the Discipline Committee where the Student Discipline Officer considers that a breach of the Rules of Behaviour may have taken place and that a minor sanction or measure may not be an appropriate action;

(c)Where neither (a) nor (b) is appropriate: (i) to take no further action; (ii) to refer the matter for decision under another University procedure.

5.3 In considering whether to impose a minor sanction or measure, or refer the case to the Discipline Committee, the Student Discipline Officer shall give consideration to Regulation 5 of the Rules of Behaviour and any guidance published by the General Board in relation to sanctions and measures, as well as the following factors:

(a)The seriousness of the breach;

(b)The harm or damage caused;

(c)The advantage gained or the advantage that could have been gained by the Respondent as a result of the breach;

(d)The intent and planning involved in the breach;

(e)The impact on the Collegiate University Community, including the content of any Impact Statement;

(f)Whether the Respondent has admitted to the breach and when such an admission took place;

(g)Whether the Respondent has expressed remorse and/or shown insight into the impact of the breach;

(h)The evidenced personal circumstances of the Respondent.

5.4 Where the Student Discipline Officer decides to impose a minor sanction or measure, one or more of the following sanctions or measures are available:

(a)A written warning, which will be placed on the Respondent’s record and will make any subsequent breaches of the Rule of Behaviour more serious;

(b)To require the Respondent to pay the cost of material damages up to the amount of £250;

(c)To require the Respondent to provide a written apology;

(d)To require the Respondent to engage with an educative or reflective session;

(e)To require the Respondent to complete a written reflection;

(f)To require the Respondent not to contact a Reporting Person or Witness.

5.5 The Student Discipline Officer shall provide the decision and the reasons for the decision in writing. Within 7 days of receiving the Student Discipline Officer’s decision and reasons, the Investigating Officer shall communicate this in writing alongside a copy of the Investigation Report and evidence to the Respondent and others in line with 2.25–2.28 of this procedure. Where a minor sanction or measure is imposed, the Respondent will have 7 days from receiving the decision to confirm whether to accept this outcome or have the case referred to the Discipline Committee.

5.6 The Student Discipline Officer shall refer the case to the Discipline Committee for consideration where the Respondent does not agree with the decision to impose a minor sanction or measure; or where the Respondent does not comply with the minor sanction or measure; or where the Student Discipline Officer considers that a minor sanction or measure may not be appropriate.

5.7 The Student Discipline Officer may at any time withdraw the referral to the Discipline Committee. Such a decision will be communicated in writing to the members of the Discipline Committee, the Respondent and others in line with 2.25–2.28 of this procedure.

6. Registered Students who receive a relevant criminal conviction

6.1 It is a Registered Student’s responsibility to inform the University about any relevant criminal conviction received whilst a Registered Student. If a relevant criminal conviction is not reported then the Registered Student will be in breach of Regulation 1(c) of the Rules of Behaviour.

6.2 The purpose of a student reporting a criminal conviction is so that the University can assess whether the Registered Student is able to continue to study at the University and whether there are any further actions that need to be taken. The behaviour resulting in the criminal conviction may not necessarily be in breach of any of the Rules of Behaviour.

6.3 Where a Respondent has already received a criminal conviction as a result of behaviour that is raised within a Concern, an investigation shall be conducted in accordance with paragraph 4 of the procedure. The conviction will be used as evidence that the behaviour on which the conviction was based has taken place.

6.4 Any criminal sentence given to the Respondent will be taken into account by decision-makers when considering whether to apply any sanctions or measures under this procedure. There is a need for all action taken and sanctions or measures imposed by the University to be proportionate.

6.5 Where a Registered Student reports a criminal conviction to OSCCA, the Investigating Officer shall require the Registered Student to provide relevant court documentation, including a copy of the sentence, any judgement and any pre-sentence report. The Registered Student shall also have the opportunity to provide a written statement.

6.6 The Investigating Officer shall present the information to the Student Discipline Officer, and the Student Discipline Officer shall decide either that:

(a)the criminal conviction does not require the University to take any further action; or

(b)the criminal conviction requires the University to take further action.

6.7 Where paragraph 6.6(a) is the decision then the Investigating Officer shall write to the Registered Student and confirm that no further action will be taken. A record of this decision shall be retained by OSCCA.

6.8 Where paragraph 6.6(b) is the decision, the Student Discipline Officer shall refer the matter to the Discipline Committee for further consideration. The Discipline Committee shall consider whether to impose any sanction or measure outlined in paragraphs 5.4 or 7.12 of this procedure for the protection of the interests of the University, in accordance with the process outlined in paragraph 7.

7. Discipline Committee consideration

7.1 Where the Student Discipline Officer refers any case to the Discipline Committee, a member of OSCCA shall act as Secretary to the Discipline Committee and shall assign by lot a Chair and two members to the Discipline Committee from among the members of the Panel appointed by General Board who are available and have not had prior involvement in the case.

7.2 The Discipline Committee shall consist of:

(a)A Chair, who shall be experienced in decision-making relating to misconduct, either through legal training or in relation to student, staff or professional procedures;

(b)A member of Regent House;

(c)A Registered Student or a sabbatical officer of Cambridge University Students’ Union or the Graduate Union.

7.3 The Secretary of the Discipline Committee shall organise a meeting of the Discipline Committee and will communicate the membership of the Committee, date, time and location of the meeting to the Discipline Committee members, the Investigating Officer, the Respondent and the Respondent’s Senior Tutor. If any member is unable or unwilling to act, another member shall be assigned by lot from the relevant panel. If it is not possible to assign three members, the Chair shall have discretion to consider whether it is fair and in the interests of all parties to hold a meeting with only two members of the Committee present. If a Chair is not assigned, the meeting will be rearranged.

7.4 The Respondent shall be provided with a copy of the Investigation Report and evidence, have an opportunity to provide a written response and be invited to attend (and, if they wish, to give oral evidence to) the Discipline Committee meeting with a supporter and/or representative of their choice. Any response or request to call witnesses from the Respondent must be provided at least 10 days before the date of the Discipline Committee meeting. A request to call a Witness will be considered by the Chair, who shall determine whether to permit the Witness to attend or provide evidence in an alternative format as outlined at paragraph 7.8. Where the Respondent is dissatisfied with the Chair’s decision, the Respondent can appeal this decision following the Discipline Committee’s decision on the Concern to the Appeal Committee. A Respondent who wishes to admit the alleged misconduct in advance of the Discipline Committee meeting may do so as part of the written response, in which case the meeting may focus only on what, if any, sanction or measure to apply.

7.5 Respondents should attend the Discipline Committee in person, where possible. However, where this is impractical, for example, where the Respondent is in another country, the Respondent may attend by video link. If the Respondent is unable to attend the Discipline Committee meeting and wishes to do so, it shall be at the Chair’s discretion as to whether the Respondent has provided a sufficient reason for absence, in which case the meeting date should be re-arranged. The Discipline Committee meeting may proceed in the Respondent’s absence.

7.6 The Discipline Committee, the Respondent and the Investigating Officer shall receive a copy of the Discipline Committee papers, the Investigation Report and evidence, and any response provided by the Respondent, at least 7 days before the Discipline Committee meeting.

7.7 During the Discipline Committee meeting, there shall be the opportunity for the Committee members to ask questions of the Investigating Officer and, if in attendance, the Respondent. The Respondent (or the Respondent’s representative) and the Investigating Officer will also have the opportunity to ask questions. The Respondent shall have the opportunity to make a final statement.

7.8 It will not normally be necessary for the Reporting Person and/or Witness to attend the meeting as their evidence will be provided in the Discipline Committee papers. Where the Respondent wishes to challenge the evidence of a Reporting Person or a Witness, the Respondent should notify the Chair of the Discipline Committee who will determine the most appropriate format for this. Appropriate formats may include the Reporting Person or Witness attending the Discipline Committee meeting in person or by video link, and/or questions being directed through the Chair. Alternatively, the Respondent may be asked to explain the precise challenges and, where the Chair of the Discipline Committee considers those challenges material to the Discipline Committee’s decision, a further written response will be sought from the Reporting Person or Witness. The Discipline Committee may pause the meeting to request further information where the Chair deems it appropriate to do so.

7.9 Once the Discipline Committee is satisfied that it has received all of the information, all persons except for the members, Secretary and note taker of the Discipline Committee shall withdraw.

7.10 The Discipline Committee shall consider all the information that has been provided and reach one of the following decisions:

(a)To dismiss the case;

(b)To find that there has been a breach of the Rules of Behaviour.

7.11 Where the Discipline Committee has found that the Rules of Behaviour have been breached, the Secretary shall inform the Discipline Committee of any previous breaches of the same Rule. The Respondent (and any supporter and/or representative) and the Investigating Officer will be invited back into the meeting and the Respondent (or the Respondent’s representative) will have an opportunity to make a further statement in relation to mitigation regarding the breach of the Rules of Behaviour and any previous breaches of Rules of Behaviour. The Investigating Officer may provide further information including in relation to any Impact Statement and the Committee may ask questions. The Respondent (or the Respondent’s representative) shall have the opportunity to make a final statement.

7.12 The Discipline Committee will then consider whether a sanction or measure should be imposed. Consideration shall be given to the factors outlined in Regulation 5 of the Rules of Behaviour and paragraph 5.3 of this procedure. The Discipline Committee can consider whether a minor sanction or measure, as outlined in paragraph 5.4, should be imposed. Where a minor sanction or measure is not considered to be appropriate, the Discipline Committee can choose from the following further sanctions and measures:

(a)Restrictions or conditions on the right to use University or, with the permission of the relevant College, College premises, facilities or services;

(b)The amendment of academic results or the temporary or permanent removal of academic awards;

(c)Temporary or permanent exclusion from membership of the University with accompanying temporary or permanent removal of academic awards;

(d)Any penalty considered by the Discipline Committee to be lighter.

7.13 In deciding upon the appropriate sanction(s) or measure(s), the Discipline Committee shall consider each sanction or measure in turn and shall impose the lowest sanction(s) or measure(s) commensurate with the breach. The Discipline Committee shall record the reasons for the sanctions or measures imposed. Sanctions or measures affecting the academic results or academic awards of a Respondent shall only be imposed where it is proportionate to do so.

7.14 The Secretary of the Discipline Committee, within 7 days of the Discipline Committee reaching a decision, shall provide to the Respondent a written document explaining the Discipline Committee’s decision, reasons for the decision, any sanction or measure applied and the right of appeal. The notes of the Discipline Committee meeting will be shared with the Respondent within 14 days of the Discipline Committee meeting. The outcome will be shared with others in line with 2.25–2.28 of this procedure.

7.15 Where a Respondent subsequently fails to comply with any sanctions or measures imposed by the Discipline Committee, the Respondent will be subject to any action specified by the Discipline Committee to be imposed in this circumstance; or, where other action has not been specified, further disciplinary action may be taken under Regulation 1(a) of the Rules of Behaviour.

8. The Appeal Committee

8.1 The Respondent shall have the right to appeal the decision of the Discipline Committee within 14 days of receiving the written decision. A member of OSCCA who has had no previous involvement in the case shall act as Secretary to the Appeal Committee. The Secretary to the Appeal Committee has the authority to extend the appeal deadline, where there is a compelling reason to do so.

8.2 An appeal can be submitted on the following grounds, that:

(a)The procedures were not followed properly;

(b)The Discipline Committee reached an unreasonable decision;

(c)The Respondent has new material evidence that the Respondent was unable, for valid reasons, to provide earlier in the process;

(d)There is bias or reasonable perception of bias during the procedure;

(e)The penalty imposed was disproportionate, or not permitted under the procedures.

8.3 In order to appeal the Discipline Committee’s decision, the Respondent will need to complete and submit an Appeal Form to OSCCA, which includes all evidence the Respondent wishes to be considered as part of the appeal. The University will normally aim to make a decision regarding an appeal within 30 days of the Respondent making the appeal.

8.4 If the appeal has been made on the specified grounds and within the timeframe, as determined by the Secretary of the Appeal Committee, the Secretary shall assign by lot a Chair and a member of the Regent House from among the members of the panels appointed by General Board who are available and have not had prior involvement in the case, and require the Proctors to confirm a Proctor, Deputy Proctor or Pro-Proctor who is available and has not had any prior involvement in the case.

8.5 The Appeal Committee shall consist of:

(a)A Chair, who shall be experienced in decision-making relating to misconduct, either through legal training or in relation to student, staff or professional procedures;

(b)A member of the Regent House;

(c)A Proctor, Deputy Proctor or Pro-Proctor.

8.6 The Secretary of the Appeal Committee shall organise a meeting of the Appeal Committee either physically or virtually and communicate the date, time and location for the meeting to members of the Committee. The Respondent will be informed of the membership of the Appeal Committee attending the meeting. If any member is unable or unwilling to act, another member shall be assigned by lot from the relevant panel. If it is not possible to assign three members, the Chair shall have discretion to consider whether it is fair and in the interests of all parties to hold a meeting with only two members of the Committee present. If a Chair is not assigned, the meeting will be rearranged.

8.7 The Appeal Committee shall receive the Respondent’s Appeal Form and evidence, the Discipline Committee outcome, the notes of the Discipline Committee and the material considered by the Discipline Committee at least 7 days before the Appeal Committee meeting.

8.8 The Appeal Committee shall normally consider an appeal in private based on the written materials, but has the discretion to request further information; where this happens the Respondent shall be sent a copy of any further information and be given an opportunity to provide a written response.

8.9 The Appeal Committee shall consider all the information that has been provided and reach one of the following decisions:

(a)To dismiss the appeal;

(b)To uphold the appeal.

8.10 Where the Appeal Committee has upheld an appeal on the grounds of new material evidence relating to a breach of the Rules of Behaviour, it will normally send the matter back for re-consideration by a Discipline Committee. Where the Appeal Committee has upheld an appeal on any other ground(s), it can choose to send the matter back for re-consideration by a Discipline Committee, or alternatively it has the power to impose its own decision, including sanctions or measures. Where the Appeal Committee considers a breach of the Rules of Behaviour has taken place, it can impose any sanction or measure outlined in paragraphs 5.4 and 7.12 of this procedure, including more or less significant sanctions or measures than were imposed by the Discipline Committee for the same breach.

8.11 The Secretary of the Appeal Committee, within 7 days of the Appeal Committee reaching a decision, shall provide to the Respondent a written copy of the Appeal Committee’s decision, reasons for the decision, and any substituted decision. This is the final stage of the internal process and therefore the Respondent will be issued with a Completion of Procedures letter.

8.12 Where the Discipline Committee has imposed a sanction or measure and the Respondent has appealed, the sanction or measure will not normally be implemented while the appeal is being considered. Following the Appeal Committee’s decision, any sanctions or measures shall be implemented, even if the Respondent intends to raise a complaint with an external body.

8.13 Where a Respondent subsequently fails to comply with any sanctions or measures imposed by the Appeal Committee, the Respondent will be subject to any action specified by the Appeal Committee to be imposed in this circumstance; or, where other action has not been specified, further disciplinary action may be taken under Regulation 1(a) of the Rules of Behaviour.

9 Reporting and monitoring

9.1 OSCCA shall monitor all Concerns reported using this procedure and shall produce an annual report summarising the anonymised decisions made by the Student Discipline Officer, the Discipline Committee and the Appeal Committee. The annual report shall be submitted to the General Board through its Education Committee and to the Council.

9.2 The purpose of this monitoring shall be to ensure that decisions are made consistently and at the appropriate level; that appropriate action is taken on issues identified and that information gathered is used to improve guidance and support for students and staff involved in the procedure.

(b) By rescinding the General Board’s Notice concerning a University-wide statement on plagiarism (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 194).

(c) By amending the second paragraph in the Code of practice issued under section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 197) to read as follows:

Members of the University are reminded that alleged breaches of the general regulations for discipline and other allegations of misconduct against the discipline of the University may be brought before the University Tribunal or a student disciplinary panel, as appropriate.

(d) By adding the following to Schedule X of the Procedure for the Review of Decisions of University Bodies (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 218):

Information Services Committee, Library Syndicate, Senior Proctor

Decisions to impose a fine on a student.

Decisions by the Senior Proctor to suspend or revoke a motor licence.

Student Disciplinary Procedure

Decisions made under paragraph 2.27 of the Student Disciplinary Procedure not to share with a student all evidence considered in reaching a decision under that procedure.

Decisions made by the Student Discipline Officer regarding the decision not to commission an investigation or to limit the scope of an investigation.

(e) By removing the references to the University Advocate and Special Ordinance D (iv) in paragraph 6.5 of the Procedure on Student Harassment and Sexual Misconduct (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 219) and replacing them with references to the Student Discipline Officer and the Student Disciplinary Procedure.

ANNEX C

Flow chart of the proposed Student Disciplinary Procedure

Role Description for the Student Discipline Officer

Role overview

This role, which is an additional responsibility to a Regent House member’s substantive role, is appointed by Grace. It enables an independent role-holder to assess whether it is necessary to commission an investigation into a student’s misconduct under the Student Disciplinary Procedure, and, where relevant, to consider the subsequent investigation report, choosing to take no further action, impose a minor sanction or referring the case to the Discipline Committee. The role-holder will also be responsible for considering whether a Registered Student’s criminal conviction will require the University to take further action.

The consistency and transparency of the Student Discipline Officer’s decisions and reasons for those decisions will provide the University with reassurance that students are being treated fairly and in accordance with the disciplinary procedure.

Person specification

Experience

•Must be a current member of the Regent House.

•Proven experience of decision-making, including in relation to sensitive and complex cases.

•Experience of drafting clear and succinct reasons for case decisions.

•Experience of commissioning investigations.

•Experience of working with higher education students.

•Experience of alternative methods of resolution.

Skills

•Excellent written and oral communication skills.

•Excellent attention to detail.

•Ability to prioritise according to urgency and importance.

•Demonstrate knowledge of the complexities of sexual misconduct, including the impact on those who have experienced sexual misconduct and the impact of being accused of sexual misconduct.

•Demonstrate knowledge of the complexities of academic misconduct, including contract cheating, plagiarism and examination misconduct.

•Ability to build positive, professional relationships with others.

•Demonstrate understanding of relevant legislation, including matters related to the criminal justice process, confidentiality, data sharing and discrimination.

Role Description for the Investigating Officer

Role overview

This full-time role enables the University to conduct investigations sensitively and appropriately into student misconduct, including serious sexual misconduct, and other student complaints, presenting this information to senior decision-makers within the University. The specialist knowledge and skills of the role-holder will enable the University to assure itself that the risk posed by these cases is assessed and mitigated, and that investigations are conducted in a professional and proportionate manner.

The purpose of this role is to investigate a range of allegations relating to student misconduct, including serious sexual misconduct. The role holder will ensure that the investigation processes are fit for purpose and will provide advice to internal stakeholders on relevant University procedures, decisions and risk assessment.

Person specification

Experience

•Proven experience of conducting sensitive and complex investigations, including investigations of alleged conduct that could constitute an alleged criminal offence or serious sexual misconduct.

•Experience of presenting reports to senior decision-makers.

•Experience of conducting risk assessments, including assessments of vulnerable people.

•Experience of working with higher education students.

•Experience of alternative methods of resolution.

Skills

•Excellent written and oral communication skills that can be adapted to a wide range of audiences.

•Excellent attention to detail.

•Demonstrate specialist knowledge of the complexities of sexual misconduct, including the impact on those who have experienced sexual misconduct and the impact of being accused of sexual misconduct.

•Ability to write detailed, accurate and succinct investigation reports.

•Ability to build positive, professional relationships with others.

•Demonstrate understanding of relevant legislation, including matters related to the criminal justice process, confidentiality, data sharing and discrimination.

Qualifications

•Degree level qualification/level 6 vocational qualification or equivalent experience.

•Qualification in undertaking investigations.

•Qualification in restorative practice or mediation.