Overview
The complainants (Mr and Mrs C) brought a complaint on behalf of their son, (Mr A), concerning allegations of misconduct made against him by the University of Dundee (the University). They complained that the University's investigation into his alleged misconduct was not conducted in accordance with the correct procedure, or in a manner that was fair and unbiased. They also felt that the conclusions of the investigation were unfairly punitive on Mr A.
Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that:
- (a) the University did not follow their own process in reaching their decision on the allegations against Mr A (upheld);
- (b) the University failed to take into account Mr A's special needs when carrying out their investigation (not upheld); and
- (c) the punishment decided upon by the University was not commensurate with the allegations made against Mr A (not upheld).
Redress and recommendations
The Ombudsman recommends that the University:
- (i) review their actions on Mr A's case prior to the commencement of the Ordinance 40 process with a view to improving the transparency of their information gathering in cases of potential academic dishonesty;
- (ii) introduce measures to ensure that students are aware of the evidence submitted to the Boards of Internal and External Examiners for consideration;
- (iii) introduce a policy of formally stating the allegation being made against a student at the commencement of the Ordinance 40 process;
- (iv) apologise to Mr A and his family for the failings identified in this report prior to the commencement of the Ordinance 40 process;
- (v) introduce a policy of recording their consideration of students' special circumstances in all disciplinary cases; and
- (vi) remind staff chairing hearing panels that their decisions should be based solely on the evidence presented for consideration.
The University have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.