No 6475
Wednesday 26 July 2017
Vol cxlvii No 41
pp. 769–815
1 October, Sunday. Michaelmas Term begins.
2 October, Monday. Congregations of the Regent House at 9.30 a.m.: admission of the Vice-Chancellor; election and admission of the Proctors; addresses by the Vice-Chancellor Emeritus and the Vice-Chancellor (see below).
3 October, Tuesday. Full Term begins.
This is the last ordinary issue of the Reporter for the 2016–17 academical year. The first issue of the 2017–18 academical year will be published on 27 September 2017.
|
Discussions (at 2 p.m.) |
Congregations |
|
10 October |
2 October, Mondayat 9.30 a.m. |
|
24 October |
21 October, Saturdayat 11 a.m. |
|
7 November |
25 November, Saturday at 2 p.m. |
|
21 November |
|
|
5 December |
The Proctors wish to remind members of the University that two Congregations of the Regent House will be held in the Senate-House on Monday, 2 October 2017. The first will be that appointed for the formal admission of Stephen John Toope, OC, Ph.D., T, to the office of Vice-Chancellor.
In accordance with the relevant regulations, in the absence of the Chancellor the Proctors will preside at the first Congregation and the Vice-Chancellor at the second, which will be for the election and admission of the Proctors for 2017–18.
Both the immediate Vice-Chancellor Emeritus and the Vice-Chancellor are expected to deliver an address.
Those wishing to attend are asked to be in the Senate-House by 9.15 a.m. Members of the University are reminded that they are required to wear academical dress at Congregations. 2 October 2017 will not be a ‘scarlet day’, so black gowns should be worn and only Cambridge academical dress used. Hoods are not required, other than for officers participating in the ceremonial. The proceedings are expected to end by about 10.20 a.m.
Those attending will be received afterwards by the Vice-Chancellor in the Combination Room (up to the capacity of the Room) and refreshments will be served. In accordance with the usual custom for this occasion, tickets will not be issued, but it would be helpful in arranging the refreshments if members of the Regent House and others who plan to attend could please give notice by email to 1October@admin.cam.ac.uk.
Further to the Council’s Notice dated 12 June 2017 (Reporter, 6469, 2016–17, p. 587), the Council has determined that, as the Grace raises complex matters, it will consider the Grace further at its meeting on 25 September 2017.
The Council has received the remarks made at the Discussion on 11 July 2017 (Reporter, 6474, 2016–17, p. 765) on the above Report (Reporter, 6471, 2016–17, p. 695).
Mr Emerson raised a question about the purpose of the Shared Facilities Hub building (SFH) on the West Cambridge site proposed by the Report, and the inclusion of the central production kitchen. The plan is to provide accommodation for teaching, learning, meeting, studying, socializing, eating, and drinking in an accessible building available for use by those on the site, which is distinct and separate from individual Departments and Faculties. In this respect it is a new and different kind of facility for West Cambridge that anticipates a greater staff and student population on the site in the future. There would be cost and operational efficiencies associated with extending and supplementing the kitchens in the SFH to provide production kitchen capability, rather than providing an entirely separate production kitchen facility elsewhere in the city. By making provision for this within the design of the SFH, the University retains the option of fitting out the additional production capability in the future, should the need arise to replace the existing production kitchen in the University Centre.
Professor Anderson queried the governance arrangements for developments on the West Cambridge site. To date, the governance of the West Cambridge masterplan has been undertaken by the West Cambridge Site Development Board (WCSDB), which reports directly to the Planning and Resources Committee (PRC). The SFH project has been developed under the direction and guidance of the Shared Facilities Hub Project Board, which reports to the WCSDB.
The governance arrangements for West Cambridge were recently reviewed by the PRC. The PRC approved revised arrangements, which in turn were reported to the Council.1 In future, the West and North West Cambridge Estates Board will maintain overall responsibility for both developments, but with a particular focus on development of a commercial research strategy across both sites. The recently reformed Board, with increased membership from external professionals with property development experience, is suited to undertaking this task. The academic priorities and objectives for the two sites will be the responsibility of a new West and North West Cambridge Estates Academic Board, to which the SFH Project Board will report. The new Academic Board effectively replaces the former West Cambridge Site Development Board. Its membership will predominantly comprise academics with an interest in the academic developments on both sites, and it will report to the West and North West Cambridge Estates Board and the PRC.
The SFH project is subject to the University’s Capital Projects Process which is overseen by PRC. The project brief has been developed under the direction and guidance of the SFH Project Board. The Representative User Group has worked with the professional team to develop the concept design with direction from the Project Board and WCSDB. The membership of the SFH Project Board includes the Head of the School of the Physical Sciences, the Head of the School of Technology, and representatives from the Cavendish Laboratory and the Department of Engineering. The membership of the Representative User Group includes staff with expertise in the core functions of the building – library, catering, and teaching and learning space – as well as representatives of the postdoc, assistant staff, site residents and student communities, and a cross-section of academic departments at West Cambridge (Engineering, Physics, and Veterinary Medicine). The Representative User Group’s membership will be extended to include representation from the Computer Laboratory during the next phase of the project’s development. Substantial efforts have been made to engage with people based at West Cambridge and the wider University community, including workshops with students, meetings with the departments and faculties based on the site, open meetings at West Cambridge, and meetings with others in the wider University community with an interest in the SFH project. There has been a considerable level of consultation on the SFH project to this point, and this will continue.
Several of the speakers commented on the limited choice of catering outlets on the West Cambridge site. The design of the catering facilities in the SFH building allows for a range of different services which could be provided by a variety of different operators; there is no commitment or prescription at this stage to the type or number of operators involved. The remarks about catering will be noted in the further development of the operational business case for the SFH. It should also be noted that the SFH is not the only catering facility proposed in the revised masterplan; the full masterplan envisages additional catering outlets across the site, plans for which will be developed further as the masterplan is built out.
Professor Anderson queried car parking provision. Other than a small amount of parking for service vehicles within the curtilage of the SFH, car parking arrangements do not fall within the scope of the SFH project. Car parking on the West Cambridge site is currently being monitored and the timing of a new multi-storey car park will be reviewed by the West and North West Cambridge Estates Board as the existing surplus capacity at West Cambridge is used up.
Dr Thomas and Dr Danish drew attention to the plans for cycle routes. Designs for the external areas of SFH and the adjacent Green continue to be developed in accordance with the design guidelines and parameters set out in the revised masterplan. The remarks about avoiding pedestrian/cyclist conflict and the provision of adequate and appropriate cycle parking are noted. Appropriate design solutions will be proposed in the further development of the scheme. The cycling provision to and from North West Cambridge is significant and has been a structuring principle of the development. The chicanes that have been installed, and which have been part of the detailed design of the cycleway since the reserved matters planning approval, are required to encourage cyclists to slow down as they approach other traffic (principally cars, but also other cyclists and pedestrians) and to prevent cars from driving on a wide cycleway that could be perceived as a road.
Professor Anderson raised a concern about value for money. The reasons for cost differentials between projects are many and varied, and include different user and servicing requirements, specifications, regulations, environmental standards, and market conditions. The estimated construction cost of the SFH has been benchmarked against similar shared facilities schemes at other universities across the country. The cost of the SFH is in the mid-range of these benchmark projects when equalized for price base and location. This is considered a better indicator of the cost and value for money of the SFH project than historic or recent capital projects at Cambridge which are not as comparable in form or function.
Finally, the Council notes that this is a First-stage Report, and therefore approving its recommendations will enable the plans to be developed further and the Director of Estate Strategy to apply for detailed planning approval. Details of the final scheme for the project will be provided in the Second-stage Report, which will be published once planning permission has been granted.
The Council is submitting a Grace (Grace 3, p. 799) for the approval of the recommendations of this Report.
1PRC: 26 April 2017; Council: 22 May 2017.
The Acting Registrary, acting as Secretary of the Discipline Committee, publishes this statement on the operation, procedures, and practice of the Discipline Committee to provide information and guidance to students and Colleges. The statement reflects the current disciplinary arrangements, which are under review.
1. Any complaint by the Proctors, or by any other member or employee of the University, that a student member of the University has committed a breach of the disciplinary regulations of the University is considered by the University Advocate, who decides whether a charge shall be brought. (Complaints about breaches of College disciplinary regulations are solely a matter for the College concerned.)
2. If the complaint is of a minor matter, the case may be dealt with by the Discipline Board, which consists of a Chair, one senior member of the University, and one student member. The Discipline Board has power to impose fines not exceeding £175 and to order payment of compensation not exceeding £250.
3. If the University Advocate considers that the alleged breach is a serious one, the charge will be dealt with by the Discipline Committee. The Chair of this Committee is legally qualified or experienced judicially and may be a non-resident member of the University. The other members of the Committee are two senior members and two student members, but, if the person charged so requests, the Committee includes four senior members and no student members. Hearings are normally conducted in private, with only those present who are directly involved in the case or whose presence has been agreed with the Chair (see paragraph 28). The Committee has power to impose penalties of deprivation or suspension of membership of the University, deprivation or suspension of degree, rustication, and any other penalty which it considers lighter, including requesting the Vice-Chancellor to issue a revised class-list awarding a different class of degree than that initially awarded by the Examiners, and may order payment of compensation.
4. There is provision for appeals from decisions of the Discipline Committee to another panel, the Septemviri, which consists of seven senior members of the University. The Septemviri may quash the finding or vary the penalty within the limits of the powers of the Discipline Committee. The Discipline Committee itself acts as an appeal panel against decisions of the Discipline Board, and the Discipline Board can hear appeals against library fines, fines for matters against the regulations for motor vehicles, etc. The decision of each panel, when it is acting as an appeal panel, is final and therefore will include a Completion of Procedures letter, inviting the student to raise a complaint with the Office of the Independent Adjudicator if the student remains dissatisfied.
5. In all matters concerning the investigation of an alleged breach of the regulations and subsequent proceedings before a University disciplinary panel, the University shall be under a duty to act fairly.
6. The following makes reference to the person charged as the student but is intended to encompass a case in which a former student is charged with a breach which is alleged to have taken place during their time as a student.
7. A person appearing before a University disciplinary panel is allowed assistance and representation if they so wish, and may call witnesses.
8. The Faculty of Law operates a voluntary scheme whereby members of the Faculty offer free advice and representation. Students who wish to take advantage of this arrangement should consult the Secretary of the Faculty Board of Law, who maintains a list of officers willing to act in this way. Alternatively, students may wish to seek free advice and support from the Students’ Unions’ Advice Service or employ professional assistance at their own expense.
9. The provisions for the University disciplinary panels can be found in Statutes and Ordinances:
•Statute D: Discipline (http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/univ/so/2016/statute_d-front.html)
•Special Ordinances under Statute D (http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/univ/so/2016/special_d-front.html)
•Ordinances, Chapter II: Matriculation, Residence, Admission to Degrees, Discipline (Regulations and rules of procedure) (http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/univ/so/2016/chapter02-section19.html#heading2-15 and http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/univ/so/2016/chapter02-section20.html#heading2-24)
10. Any complaint by the Proctors, or by any other member or employee of the University, that a student member of the University has committed a breach of the disciplinary regulations is considered by the University Advocate. The Advocate is the independent prosecutor in relation to University discipline and connected functions. The Advocate is appointed by Grace on the nomination of the Council; there is provision for the appointment of one or more Deputy Advocates. Under the provisions of Statute D and Special Ordinances under Statute D, the University Advocate, or a Deputy Advocate, determines whether charges should be brought against a student, and before which disciplinary panel of the University.
11. The Proctors are the University’s statutory officers with general responsibility for the maintenance of good order and discipline in the University; they have particular responsibility for upholding the general regulations for discipline laid down in University Ordinances (Chapter II: Matriculation, Residence, Admission to Degrees, Discipline).
12. Most, but by no means all, of the cases brought before the Discipline Committee concern alleged breaches of Regulation 7, which reads:
No candidate shall make use of unfair means in any University examination. Unfair means shall include plagiarism* and, unless such possession is specifically authorized, the possession of any book, paper, or other material relevant to the examination. No member of the University shall assist a candidate to make use of such unfair means.
* Plagiarism is defined as submitting as one’s own work, irrespective of intent to deceive, that which derives in part or in its entirety from the work of others without due acknowledgement.
13. The Proctors have particular responsibilities in the supervision of examinations, and for investigating cases of alleged misconduct. The Examiners or Degree Committee are responsible for assessing the marks to be awarded for academic work submitted for examination and therefore have an interest in determining whether or not the work submitted is the student’s own work. The Proctor or Chair of the Examiners or Degree Committee concerned may conduct an investigative meeting in accordance with paragraphs 17 and 19 below – involving the student, their Tutor and/or Graduate Supervisor, a Proctor (if convened by a Chair), and possibly Examiners – in order to consider whether or not a matter should be referred to the Advocate, and shall normally do so in all cases except those involving a complaint of harassment under Regulation 6 of the General Regulations for Discipline. In cases of alleged misconduct in an examination, it is conventionally the Senior Proctor who makes the formal complaint.
14. Regulation 7 refers to plagiarism as an example of unfair means in an examination. Attention is drawn to the Statement on Plagiarism issued by the General Board and to the related ‘Rules for the Guidance of Candidates and for the Prevention of Misconduct in Examinations’ issued by the Board of Examinations (Ordinances, Chapter I: the Chancellor and the Government of the University).
15. Detailed information and guidance on these matters can be found on the University website, in particular:
•Information on examinations (http://www.cambridgestudents.cam.ac.uk/your-course/examinations)
•Information on plagiarism (http://www.plagiarism.admin.cam.ac.uk/).
16. The Advocate may conduct an investigative meeting, in order to establish facts and information, to ensure that no misunderstandings or misapprehensions have arisen, and otherwise to determine whether there are grounds or reasons for proceeding against the student in one of the University disciplinary panels. The Advocate may convene such a meeting, even if an investigative meeting has already been conducted by the Proctor or the Chair of Examiners or Degree Committee.
17. Subject to paragraphs 18 and 19 below, the following principles govern the conduct of all investigative meetings:
(i)The student involved is entitled to be accompanied by a supporter at the meeting. A supporter may be a Tutor, student representative, or a friend. Students are entitled to be accompanied by a legal representative at such meetings, in addition to bringing a supporter. It is strongly recommended that the student’s Tutor or Graduate Supervisor be present to provide support, guidance, and advice (or other officer as deputy if the student’s own Tutor or Supervisor is unavailable).
(ii)Where the circumstances allow, in advance of the meeting the student will be notified in writing of the purpose and conduct of the meeting, those who may attend, and the way in which the information provided at the meeting will be used, with reference to this Statement. If no such written notice is possible, the student will be advised of these matters prior to the meeting taking place. Students will be reminded of these matters at the beginning of the meeting. Normally an investigative meeting will not take place unless the student’s supporter (or a deputy) is able to attend.
(iii)The student is not required to make any statements at an investigative meeting and is not required to admit to any charge put, but co-operation with the investigation is welcomed. Whilst the student’s attendance is not compulsory, the student is normally expected to be present but need not attend in person and may do so by other means (including by phone or videoconference). A disciplinary panel may subsequently take into account in deciding on a penalty whether or not there was co-operation with the investigation and whether admissions to charges subsequently proved were made.
(iv)Notes may be made in investigative meetings, which may be agreed by the parties concerned, or a note of dissent may be recorded; audio recordings of such meetings are not made. Any notes of such meetings may be produced, by either party, as evidence in a subsequent hearing of the Discipline Committee.
18. The Advocate shall normally conduct an investigative meeting in the case of complaints under Regulation 6 concerning harassment. It is strongly recommended that the student is accompanied by a supporter or legal representative at such a meeting.
19. In cases of suspected unfair means (other than plagiarism) in an examination under Regulation 7, the Proctors or the Chair of Examiners will usually aim to convene a meeting as soon as possible after the end of the relevant examination, often on the same day unless circumstances prevent this (for example, because the student has another examination later on the same day). In cases under Regulation 7, it is considered in the interests of all parties for the meeting to take place as soon as practicable and therefore the meeting will usually only be delayed in order to enable the attendance of the student’s Tutor or Graduate Supervisor.
20. If the Advocate decides that – in order to uphold discipline in the University, to protect the University’s reputation, or to preserve the integrity of the examination system – a student is to be charged, written notice is given to the Registrary. Under Special Ordinance, the Registrary or, ordinarily, a deputy appointed by the Registrary acts as the Secretary of the Discipline Committee. The Secretary is responsible for progressing the case before the Committee, in accordance with the regulations and rules of procedure set down in Ordinances.
21. The Secretary of the Committee will issue a written notice to the student charged, with copies sent to certain members of the student’s College (the Head of College, the Graduate or Senior Tutor). The written notice will:
(i)set out the charges, that is the complaint, against the student, as indicated by the Advocate;
(ii)indicate when the Committee is likely to convene to hear the case;
(iii)state the Chair of the Committee designated for the case.
22. The Secretary of the Committee will also draw attention to the provisions in the regulations whereby the person charged is entitled to (a) choose the general composition of the Committee (which can be four members of the Regent House, or two such members and two student members), (b) object, for good cause, to the proposed appointment of a member of the Committee, and (c) request that the Committee will sit in private. Members of the Committee will be selected at random from the relevant panels and will not have any material connection with the person charged, whether through their College, their Department, or their course of study.
23. In most cases, the Chair of the Discipline Committee (acting under powers in Statute D and Special Ordinances under Statute D to make rules of procedure) will deal with a number of case management issues, either by holding a meeting or agreeing matters by correspondence.
24. Dealing with case management issues in advance of the hearing ensures the efficient dispatch of the work of the Committee, minimizes delay, and affords both sides – the Advocate and the student – the time to prepare their cases, according to an agreed case management framework. Specifically, the main purposes of case management enquiries are:
•to take – at the earliest practicable stage – the student’s plea (if the student is willing or able to declare it), or if no plea can be taken, ascertain whether the student is likely to admit the charge or not;
•to identify, as early as possible, and agree on the real issue(s) in the case, ahead of the Committee hearing (especially where it is indicated that the student is not likely to admit the charge);
•identification of the evidence that is to be adduced, and to establish the timetable and arrangements for its disclosure;
•to establish what witnesses, if any, are to be called;
•to establish what must be done, by whom, and when;
•to find a date for the formal Committee hearing, with minimal delay;
•to consider any objections to potential membership of the Committee;
•to deal with any issues concerning the presence or absence of the student at the formal Committee hearing.
25. If a meeting is to be held, it will normally be scheduled to take place as soon as possible after the Advocate has given notice of the charges to the Registrary and after the Secretary of the Committee has issued written notice to the student charged. It is strongly recommended that a student charged has in place the services of a representative, or the support of their College Tutor or Graduate Supervisor.
26. Notes on the case management meeting or correspondence
– The meeting will be conducted orally and in private. Correspondence will be copied only to the parties directly concerned with the case.
– The student charged is entitled to be present at a case management meeting, together with their Tutor or Graduate Supervisor, their Head of House, their representative, or any deputy of any of these persons. However, the attendance of these parties is not expected unless the Chair requests such attendance.
– Attendance by the following is highly desirable: the University Advocate, or Deputy Advocate; the student and any representative of the student (appointed representative from the Faculty of Law, the Students’ Unions’ Advice Service, or a Tutor or Graduate Supervisor).
– It is open to the student to decide for herself or himself whether to defend or admit the charges or to state the grounds for contesting the charges being brought. Students may be advised that credit is given for pleas admitting the charge, and the earlier the charge is admitted, the greater the credit which may be given.
– It is important to note that a case cannot be concluded (including penalty) at a case management meeting or by correspondence prior to the hearing, even if the student admits the charge. Plea bargaining does not take place at the hearing.
– The directions of the Chair on case management issues should be regarded as binding.
27. The Committee will normally sit in private. A decision on whether the Committee sits in public or in private is at the discretion of the Chair of the Committee, who will take into account the wishes of the student in reaching a decision.
28. If the Committee sits in private, the following are entitled to be present: the student, the student’s Tutor or Graduate Supervisor (or a deputy appointed by the Tutor or Graduate Supervisor), the Head of the student’s College (or a deputy appointed by the Head), the University Advocate, the complainant, and any person appointed to represent the student, the complainant, or the University Advocate. Whether the Committee sits in public or in private, the rules of procedure specifically provide for the Committee to proceed in the absence of any of the persons entitled to be present.
29. A student is expected to appear in person before the Discipline Committee. If attendance has not been excused in advance at the case management meeting, or no good reason for non-attendance is offered, the Committee will be at liberty to take that into account. It is recognized, however, that if, for example, the Committee meets outside Term, it may prove difficult for students to present themselves. In cases of non-attendance the Discipline Committee may adjourn the hearing or proceed in the student’s absence.
30. In exceptional circumstances, non-attendance for no good reason may be regarded as a breach of the University’s discipline in its own right and may be punishable by a fine, if the non-attendance is deemed intentionally to disrupt or impede the processes of the Committee. It should be noted that the imposition of a fine for such reasons might in itself become subject to an appeal to the Septemviri, or indeed may be subject to review by the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA).
31. A student whose case is being heard or adjudicated upon by the Discipline Committee
(i)will be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard by the Committee; and
(ii)has the right to call witnesses and to question witnesses upon whose evidence the case against her or him is based.
32. The procedure of the Discipline Committee follows normal adversarial principles. These allow for the presentation of a prosecution case (by the Advocate) and a defence case, with presentation and scrutiny of evidence, and the examination and cross-examination of witnesses, including examination by the Committee itself. Where the charge is admitted, the Chair may vary the procedure and direct that the parties make brief expository statements and concentrate on representations they wish to make in mitigation and as to penalty.
33. The burden of proof set under the procedures for the Committee is a criminal standard – viz. the Committee shall not find a charge proved unless it is satisfied that a charge has been ‘proved beyond reasonable doubt’.
34. The Committee may retire (i.e. the members remain whilst others withdraw) at any point in the hearing to consider the case. At the end of the hearing the Committee will generally reconvene and a decision will be announced as to whether the case has been proved, and as to penalties imposed. The Chair may however rule that the decision should be communicated by other means after the hearing has been concluded. The decision and the reasons for the decision will be communicated in writing to the student within seven calendar days of the decision being reached. Any penalty imposed has immediate effect – save that the Chair of the Discipline Committee and the Chair of the Septemviri each has the power to suspend the imposition of any penalty until the conclusion of the proceedings by the Septemviri of any appeal against a decision of the Discipline Committee.
35. The range of penalties available to the Discipline Committee is set out in Statutes and Ordinances, and includes: expulsion, or rustication; deprivation (or suspension) of degrees or membership of the University; deprivation (or suspension) of the right to use University premises or facilities; a fine, or an order to pay compensation; a lesser penalty; exceptionally, no penalty.
36. Where the student has been charged with misconduct in an examination, and such a case has been proved, the Committee may determine that a penalty be imposed in relation to the examination concerned, either in whole or in part. The effect of such a penalty may have an effect on the overall classification received by a student, for the whole examination concerned.
37. There is no formal schedule of tariffs for breaches considered by the Discipline Committee. Evidence in mitigation is usually presented in cases before the Committee, even when the charge is not admitted, and this inevitably affects consideration of penalty. It is considered very important that the Committee should not feel shackled unnecessarily by the concept of tariffs for particular breaches, and should have maximum flexibility in considering all the relevant circumstances in the particular case. Details of precedents that have been published in the Reporter are available to members of the Committee and to the Advocate, the student, and the student’s legal representative. These are ordinarily circulated a week or so before any sitting of the Committee, as part of a Secretary’s bundle. Information about penalties imposed by the Committee is contained in the announcements of the Committee published in the Reporter.
38. The student will be advised of their rights to appeal from the decision of the Committee. This will be made clear at the conclusion of the Committee hearing, and it may be that the Chair will seek an indication from the student as to whether or not they wish to appeal. There is no obligation to indicate at the hearing whether an appeal is to be launched, but delay in knowing whether this is to be the case may affect the way in which the Committee’s decision is enacted and in particular how any changes involving an amended class-list are to be effected.
39. The student will receive a reasoned decision concerning their case soon after the hearing of the Committee.
40. The Committee will issue a Notice to be published in the Reporter and elsewhere giving summary details of the case. By custom, such notices will not identify the student by name, College, or course of study.
41. The procedures of the Committee provide for a person whose case is adjudicated upon by the Discipline Committee to be given a copy of the minutes of the Committee, in addition to a reasoned decision in writing. The minutes of the Committee meeting may be agreed by the parties concerned, or a note of dissent may be recorded; audio recordings of such meetings are not made.
42. It is important to note that relevant parties, such as the Student Registry, will be properly informed about the Committee’s decision in a particular case, and that appropriate endorsements may be made to the student’s record which make clear the nature of the student’s appearance before the Committee and the penalty imposed by the Committee, or makes appropriate references to material that may be consulted.
43. The normal practice of the Committee has been to preserve the anonymity of students in relation to the Committee’s Notices (in the Reporter) and any other announcements of its decisions. However, it is not obliged to do this and it may order the name of the student to be published if it considers that the justice of the case requires this. The University Council has taken the view that it is for the Committee itself to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether to vary the custom of anonymity in its decisions.
44. In certain circumstances, however, it is necessary to publish in some form the name of a student where the penalty relates to the deprivation of a degree and/or deprivation of membership of the University. In such cases, and because the naming of the student concerned may be regarded as having some of the character of a penalty, the Committee will, at the time the penalty is imposed, inform the student of its determination that they will be named so that any observations may be made by the student or their representative. Potentially the matter might be the subject of an appeal (that is, for the Discipline Committee, to the Septemviri), or the action of the Committee might also be subject to review by the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA).
45. Indirectly, the names of the students are implicitly published through the usual arrangements for the amendment of the class-list by the Vice-Chancellor in accordance with the penalty imposed by the Committee.
The 2017 edition of the University’s Statutes and Ordinances will be available in PDF and HTML formats online at http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/univ/so/ by early October.
The Reprographics Centre in the Old Schools have agreed to produce copies for the University at a cost of £15 for a thermal-bound, two-volume copy. Orders for these are being collated by the Registrary’s Office and should be sent – clearly stating the contact name, department or College, number of copies, and delivery address – by email to University.Draftsman@admin.cam.ac.uk by 31 October 2017. Orders received by 15 September 2017 should arrive before the start of Michaelmas Term.
CamTools is being taken offline and will not be available after 30 September 2017. Those with a CamTools site who wish to preserve the content should make copies of their data before that date; instructions on how to do so can be found at http://www.camtools.admin.cam.ac.uk/switch_off/index.shtml.
Queries about the switch-off of CamTools should be directed to: camtoolsswitchoff@admin.cam.ac.uk.