An assessment of a case can be carried out by anyone who acts as an Authorised University Officer (AUO). AUOs are described in section 7 of the Regulation. Assessments will commonly take place within Schools, Faculties, the Division of Campus Life and the Division of Residential and Sports Services.

Though the Regulation identifies certain roles who act as AUOs, the range of AUOs is much larger.  They will be individuals at the University who have some responsibility for case handling in their area.  For example, in the Division of Campus Life, the Director of Campus Life's AUO responsibilities may be delegated to the Head of Advice and Response or the Advice and Response Managers.  Within Schools, Academic Malpractice Officers, senior academics or Teaching and Learning Managers may take on the AUO role.  In halls of residence, the Residential Life Manager or Senior Residential Life Advisers may lead on the AUO role.

You can access additional guidance on the role here: Guidance on the AUO role.

At its most simplistic, an assessment under Regulation XVII, is the ability to review a case to help decide what should happen next.

In the first instance, an AUO should look at whether what is being alleged potentially links to an indicative definition of misconduct from section 2 of Regulation XVII.  The emphasis here is on indicative - an AUO is saying, on face value, what is being alleged could be definition X.  However, this may change as a case progresses.  An AUO will then look at potential seriousness of a case, such as does the case require precautionary measures, or is the matter not serious enough to warrant consideration through the disciplinary process.  It may be that the AUO cannot comment on seriousness at an early stage.  The third thing an AUO may consider is how much enquiry (if any) needs to happen before a decision is reached on next steps.

It could be that the case material already available is sufficient to refer a case to a disciplinary panel.  For example, a member of House Services has provided a photograph from a student's room showing a covered smoke detector, or a student household has been issued with a Noise Abatement Notice by the council, or a Turnitin Report shows a concerning amount of similarity in a student's work indicating academic malpractice.

Where the case material is not of reasonable detail to make a referral, the AUO should commence further enquiries, or they should appoint somebody to make these further enquiries (aka Case Handler or Investigator).  This could include multiple Case Handlers or Case Handlers external to the University.  The level of enquiry may be indicated by the AUO, but ultimate responsibility for conducting these will be the allocated Case Handler.  The manner, method and depth of enquiry will be for the Case Handler to set. 

Sometimes such enquiries can head off potential issues at a disciplinary hearing.  For example, in case of collusion or malpractice in groupwork, it can be helpful to seek an early response from the students involved to try and establish responsibilities. 

The more serious the case, and the greater the potential affect on a Respondent from an adverse finding by a panel, the deeper the level of enquiry one would expect.  Essentially, a fuller investigation might be needed.  For less serious cases, a Case Handler may identify lines of enquiry, such as collection of footage, statements etc, but is content that interviews are not needed and documentary materials are sufficient. 

Investigative frameworks

For disciplinary related matters, most cases can be dealt with through the Assessment stage and follow the general approach set out within the Regulation and associated procedures.

Within Campus Life, cases that go to a full investigation generally follow the following process:

• Flowchart for Reporting Parties
• Flowchart for Respondents

There are other processes, whether under the disciplinary framework, or elsewhere, that may specify how cases are handled at the enquiry stage.  These include:

• The Academic Malpractice Procedure (which sits under Regulation XVII) sets out suggested ways for exploring different types of suspected malpractice.  For example, plagiarism may just require an academic review a piece of work and Turnitin Report, whereas contract cheating may benefit from a student attending a viva (oral assessment).
• The Sexual Misconduct and Gender-Based Violence Procedure (which sits under Regulation XVII) is perhaps the most comprehensive investigatory process relating to student misconduct.
• Regulation XVIII (Student Complaints Procedure), sits outside the disciplinary process, but allows students to raise concerns about most aspects of their University experience, including inter-personal concerns of a dignity at work and study nature (i.e. bullying, harassment, discrimination and victimisation).

Recognising that cases are individual in nature with their own complexities, means that the University may need to adapt its approach to enquiry and investigation to suit the case.  The University will look to apply the most appropriate method when considering a case, factoring in principles of fairness, timeliness, proportionality and consistency.

Timeframes

The University recognises that cases can feel consuming to the individuals involved.  Though the procedures set out an indicative timeframe of 30 working days to complete the Assessment stage, this is perhaps applicable to the more straight-forward cases.  Complex cases, or those that require a deeper level of investigation e.g. multiple pieces of evidence to review, interviews to conduct, and need a substantive written outcome, will typically fall outside of the 30 working day timeframe.  In a similar way, Case Handlers with multiple cases ongoing may need to balance their time across cases. 

Signposting to support will be made, and be accessible, as a matter of course for individuals involved in cases, and individuals should expect to have updates and someone whom they can contact.     

Materials

The Case Handler should compile documentary materials as they make their enquiries.  Often there is something, like a formal report or a complaint, that has prompted the case being considered.  A Case Handler should use this to inform their initial lines of enquiry, which may include speaking with a Reporting Party of collecting other materials e.g. copies of messages, footage, contacting other parties.  

It may not always be necessary to approach a Respondent, but when it is, a Case Handler will need to think carefully about when they do this and what information they can share. A Case Handler may consider that sharing all the documentary materials provides a Respondent with an unfair advantage in an enquiry or it may interfere with their recall of events.  As a minimum though, a Case Handler should provide a Respondent with the core details of the allegations being made e.g. date, location, parties involved, key issues of concern.

A Case Handler may invite a written submission from a Respondent too.

Any enquiry is active and ongoing until the Case Handler has reached a decision on next steps.  A body of materials is rarely stagnant.  This may also affect what can be shared when and with who. 

All materials collected and generated will be stored by the University and, if a case progresses to a Panel, it is expected that the full file will be shared with the Panel and the Respondent (save any appropriate redactions).

Meetings

Parties called to meetings should be given reasonable notice to attend, where they're told what the meeting is about, who is going to be in attendance and of their right to be accompanied by a Supporter.  

The level of formality of the meeting can be set by the Case Handler.  However, there should always be some sort of record made of the meeting.  This could be non-verbatim notes taken by the Case Handler, up to a transcript by a note taker or made from a recording.  Audio/video recordings of meetings need only be agreed for administrative purposes; personal recordings are not usually permitted and need not be agreed to.  The more serious the case, the more formal the notes should be.  In some cases, like sexual misconduct, it is important to see the questions being asked and the responses given, as this will feed into the case analysis.

An individual invited to a meeting will not normally be provided with the questions in advance of the meeting, as that may interfere with free recall and it can create a more rigid, rather than natural, flow to a meeting.  The Case Handler, however, should be open to making adjustments where necessary e.g. identifying areas in advance to discuss at the meeting.  Providing questions to individuals may be more appropriate for witnesses or for brief enquiries or clarifications.    

The individual who attends the meeting can be provided with a copy of their notes.  If the notes come from a recording, then it is not necessary to seek the individual's agreement to the notes, but on occasion seeking agreement on the notes, or clarification on aspects of them, may be helpful.  An individual should not alter notes to bring new meaning to something they said.  In the event of a significant dispute, it may be best to show this as tracked changes.

Where an individual does not attend a meeting, or input in another way, then the Case Handler may need to reach a decision without their input.  Internal enquiries are not like police interviews, so there isn't a right to silence per se; students are encouraged to engage so that Case Handlers are able to reach the most informed decision they can.

Witnesses

A witness may be identified by someone going through the process.  Whether this person needs to be spoken to, or approached for input, is at the discretion of the Case Handler.  Someone who has not actually observed any behaviour, has a tangential association to a case or is more relevant to commenting on someone's character, may be discounted from an enquiry or investigation.  A Case Handler needs to manage their time effectively and take proportionate steps to make enquiries where there is probative value to the case.     

A Case Handler will be focussed on whether there is a potential case to answer by a Respondent.  In other words, do they think it is more likely than not (on the balance of probabilities) that a Respondent has committed misconduct.  A complaint or formal report about their behaviour being made, does not necessarily mean that a finding can be established.  Equally, a case may start off as an indicative allegation of X, but through enquiry, the allegations turns out to be Y, or in the case of multiple allegations, not all of them may lead to there being a potential case to answer.

It is good practice for the Case Handler to write up their findings and recommendations for next steps in the process.  The Case Handler should set out the process they've followed, the information they've collected and then any reasons for the decision they've reached (set against the indicative definitions of misconduct).  In their write up, a Case Handler should present information not only that supports their end conclusion, but also information that may contrast with that conclusion.

The level of write up is for the Case Handler to identify based on the nature of the case.  It may be that a short letter setting out the decision is sufficient or, in more serious cases, a fuller report may be needed (perhaps supplemented with a cover letter).

If they are not the AUO, it is good practice for the Case Handler to send their write-up to the AUO, to allow the AUO to provide their comments, agreement or disagreement on the outcome. 

Though key parties involved in a case will be entitled to an electronic copy of the outcome, in serious cases, and where there may be substantial welfare issues, it may be advisable for the Case Handler to first provide a summary of the outcome at a meeting so that delivery is more personable.  Such meetings are not intended to provide parties with an opportunity to challenge a decision made.    

Outcomes

• No further formal action should be taken under this procedure or the Regulation;
• The issues should be referred for consideration under an alternative University student regulation, policy or procedure;
• Some form of informal resolution is appropriate (such as, attendance at an informal meeting or mediation, participation in restorative justice, highlighting behavioural expectations, a student offering an undertaking for future good conduct etc);
• The case is suitable for handling via a fast-track process; or
• In light of the findings, the allegation(s) should be referred for consideration by a  Summary Disciplinary Panel or a University Disciplinary Panel.

When a case is referred to a later stage of the disciplinary process, the Case Handler will provide their case file to the appropriate team to progress the case further.  A Respondent cannot challenge their referral to a disciplinary panel; if they disagree with the Case Handler's conclusions then they should make such representations to the panel as it will be the panel which makes a final finding on the allegations.  Post-referral, it is normally only if a Respondent withdraws from the University, or a Reporting Party withdraws their case, that a referral will not proceed to a panel hearing.

You may find the following templates useful:

• Assessment meeting invite template
• Assessment meeting script template
• Assessment meeting outcome template