Cambridge University Reporter


Court of Discipline: Notice

The Court of Discipline met on 28 November 2007 and on 7 December 2007 to consider a charge brought by the acting University Advocate under Statute B, VI, 28 on a complaint by the Senior Proctor against an undergraduate student of the University. The Court consisted of: Professor G. J. Virgo, DOW (Chairman); Dr C. S. Barnard, T, Mrs N. Blanning, JN, Dr G. Jondorf, G, Mr A. D. Lemons, HH; with Mr A. Bennett, Clerk of the Court. The Court consisted of senior members only and sat in camera.

The defendant was charged with an offence contrary to Regulation 6 of the General Regulations for Discipline, in that the student had used unfair means in a dissertation submitted as part of the examination for the Natural Sciences Tripos, Part II (Anatomy B), 2006, specifically that the student had plagiarized from the work of others without due indication and had passed off the work submitted as the student's own.

The defendant pleaded Not Guilty to the charge. The Advocate detailed the circumstances of the case; the defendant's legal representative presented the defendant's case. The Court heard a considerable amount of evidence, and considered the statements and oral evidence provided by a large number of witnesses. The Court had particular regard to the testimony of two expert witnesses, both of whom were of considerable standing in their particular specialism in psychiatry, which was crucial in reaching an understanding of the state of mind and nature of the depressive condition suffered by the defendant in 2005-06 when the offence was allegedly committed.

A principal consideration before the Court was whether the defendant had formed, at whatever point in the actus reus, the necessary mens rea that demonstrated either intention or negligence on their part in carrying out the act of plagiarism, the facts of which were not denied by the student. Following submissions made by the acting University Advocate and by the defendant's legal representative, the Chairman ruled that the Court should proceed on that basis.

The unanimous decision of the Court was that the person charged submitted a dissertation as part of the requirements for a University examination which substantially reproduced the work of others, knowing that it was not their own original work, but without a proven dishonest intent to deceive the Examiners. It followed that the student had resorted to the use of plagiarism and so was deemed to have used unfair means in a University examination, contrary to Regulation 6 of the General Regulations for Discipline and contrary to the Rules for the Guidance of Candidates and for the Prevention of Misconduct in Examinations.

The Court therefore found the student to be Guilty of the charge brought by the acting University Advocate.

In the light of the very strong mitigating evidence, the Court resolved not to impose any sentence and to confirm the decision of the Applications Committee of the Council to grant the student concerned an allowance qualifying them to proceed to the B.A. Degree with honours. In reaching this determination as to sentence, the Court had particular regard to the evidence that the student had been suffering from serious mental illness during their final year, and to the fact that they would have been out of formal academic study for two years by September 2008. The Court agreed that the decision not to impose further penalty was not only very lenient but should be understood and marked as having a strong rehabilitative intention - that is, the student concerned might be enabled to proceed to further academic or professional study. The members of the Court agreed that, while the University regards plagiarism as a most serious offence and an affront to the standards and expectations of the University as a community of scholars, they were satisfied that the student concerned had come to terms with the grave error they had committed and judged that nothing would be served by penalizing them to any further degree.