1. Purpose

1.1 The purpose of these procedures is to:

(a) implement fair, just and timely processes—consistent with the principles of procedural fairness—for investigating allegations of student misconduct, and to provide educational and/or remedial actions and penalties that may be applied; and

(b) identify decision-makers and provide practical advice to guide those administering the process.

1.2 These procedures must be read in conjunction with the Student Conduct – Governing Policy and the Responsible and Ethical Use of Artificial Intelligence Technologies – Guidelines.

2. Scope and application

2.1 These procedures apply to the following members of the University community:

(a) all students, including former students and individuals who are not currently enrolled, in relation to:

(i) general misconduct; and

(ii) coursework academic misconduct, including for HDR students when the suspected academic misconduct relates to coursework components.

(b) staff members when performing responsibilities associated with managing, assessing, investigating, or determining student misconduct.

2.2 These procedures do not apply to:

(a) HDR research or research‑related academic misconduct, including research‑integrity matters. These matters are managed in accordance with the Managing and Investigating Breaches of Responsible Research Conduct – Procedures; or

(b) conduct occurring in a person’s staff capacity. These matters are managed in accordance with the Staff Code of Conduct – Governing Policy. These procedures apply only to conduct occurring in the individual’s student capacity.

2.3 When suspected student misconduct involves discrimination, harassment (including sexual harassment), bullying, vilification, victimisation, violence (including threats), or gender‑based violence, these procedures operate alongside the Sexual Assault, Sexual Harassment and Respectful Relationships (Students) – Operational Policy and Procedures, and are informed by the trauma‑informed, culturally safe and inclusive principles of the Prevention and Response to Gender‑Based Violence (GBV) – Governing Policy.

2.4 Action under these procedures does not prevent action under any other University policy document, and multiple processes can operate concurrently.

2.5 These procedures apply to all student misconduct matters reported or initiated on or after the commencement of Trimester 1, 2026. Matters already underway prior to this date continue under the previous version of the procedures.

3. Definitions

Please refer to the University’s Glossary of Terms for policies and procedures. Terms and definitions identified below are specific to these procedures and are critical to its effectiveness:

Academic integrity

“Academic integrity is defined as: ‘a commitment, even in the face of adversity, to six fundamental values: honesty, trust, fairness, respect, responsibility, and courage. From these values flow principles of behaviour that enable academic communities to translate ideals to action’ (International Centre for Academic Integrity, 2014).

For the purposes of the University’s policies and procedures, academic integrity is: ‘the moral code of academia. It involves using, generating and communicating information in an ethical, honest and responsible manner’ (Monash University, 2013). The term ‘ethical scholarship’ has a similar meaning. These definitions apply to the behaviour of teachers, researchers, students or others who are engaged in any form of scholarly activity.” (1)

Academic misconduct refers to a breach of academic integrity. Cheating, plagiarism, and fabrication or falsification of data are examples of such breaches, actions or behaviour which is contrary to expected student academic integrity outlined in Section 5.2 of the Student Conduct – Governing Policy.

Assault has its legal meaning (Section 245 Criminal Code 1899 (Qld)) and includes striking, touching moving or otherwise applying force of any kind to another person without consent.

Bullying is repeated and unreasonable behaviour, whether intentional or unintentional, directed towards an individual or a group that creates a risk to health and safety.

Some of the more common types of bullying behaviours are:

Physical – damaging or stealing belongings, threats of violence, practical jokes or initiations, denying access to information, supervision, consultation or resources to the detriment of the student;

Verbal/written - name-calling, offensive language, unjustified criticism or complaints, insulting someone about an attribute, quality or personal characteristic;

Social – deliberately excluding someone from study-related activities, spreading misinformation or malicious rumours, sharing information that will have a harmful effect on the other person, damaging a person’s social reputation or social acceptance; and

Cyberbullying – any form of bullying behaviour that occurs online or via a mobile device. It can be verbal or written, and can include threats of violence as well as images, videos and/or audio.

Discrimination, as defined in the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld), means to treat or to propose to treat, a person with an attribute (listed in the Act) less favourably or to impose unreasonable terms or conditions with which individuals with a particular attribute are unable to comply. Attributes may include:

Sex

Relationship status

Pregnancy

Parental Status

Breastfeeding

Age

Race

Impairment

Religious belief or religious activity

Political belief or activity

Trade Union activity

Lawful sexual activity

Gender Identity

Sexuality

Family responsibilities

Association with, or relation to, a person identified on the basis of any of the above attributes.

Discrimination can be either direct or indirect. Direct discrimination takes place when an individual is disadvantaged or treated less favourably than another person. Indirect discrimination occurs when a practice or policy appears to be fair because it treats everyone the same way but actually disadvantages people from a particular group.

Expulsion from the University, means cancellation of enrolment and prohibition from enrolling in any courses or programs at the University, and may involve the removal of access to the University’s premises and facilities for a period of time or on a permanent basis. An application for re-enrolment following expulsion may only be approved by the University’s Council.

General misconduct is any action or behaviour which is contrary to expected student conduct outlined in Section 5.1 of the Student Conduct – Governing Policy.

Harassment is any form of behaviour that is unwelcome, unsolicited, unreciprocated and usually (but not always) repeated. It is behaviour that is likely to offend, humiliate or intimidate. Harassment can be based on any of the attributes listed under the definition of discrimination in these procedures and, for example, can include sexual, disability, racial or gender-based harassment.

Human rights has the meaning set out in the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). Rights relevant to a student’s relationship to the University and may include (but are not limited to) the rights of freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief; freedom of expression; peaceful assembly and freedom of association; cultural rights including of Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islander peoples; the right to a fair hearing; and the right to protection of privacy and reputation.

Interim suspension is usually removal of access to the University’s premises and facilities during an investigation of a report of general misconduct for the management and good governance of the University. Further information about interim suspensions is outlined in Section 4.5 Student Misconduct - Procedures.

Procedural fairness: “Procedural fairness is about providing a person who might be adversely affected by a decision a ‘fair hearing’ before the decision is made.”(2) It refers to the process by which a decision is reached and not the decision itself. With regard to misconduct, procedural fairness requires that a student against whom an allegation of misconduct is made by the University be provided with:

all relevant details and evidence of the alleged misconduct; and

an opportunity to present their version of events concerning the alleged misconduct.

Procedural fairness requires an investigator and/or decision maker to:

act impartially, without bias and without preconceived notions of culpability;

commence and complete the investigation without undue delay;

make enquiries and take actions to determine the facts of the matter based on sound reasoning and relevant evidence;

consider all relevant information and evidence;

not take into account irrelevant matters;

inform the student(s) concerned of the general substance of the allegation and the range of possible consequences if the investigation results in the allegation being substantiated;

provide the student(s) concerned with the opportunity to respond to and put forward evidence or arguments in their favour;

provide an opportunity for the student(s) concerned to make a case concerning why a particular consequence should not follow in the event that the allegation is substantiated; and

to deal with the allegation in a timely manner.

Repeated behaviour refers to the persistent nature of the behaviour and can involve a range of behaviours over time.

Sexual assault has its legal meaning (Section 352 Criminal Code 1899 (Qld)) and includes any unwanted or forced sexual act or behaviour that occurs without consent. Sexual assault occurs when a person indecently assaults another person or procures another person, without their consent, to commit a sexual act. Examples of sexual assault include:

inappropriate touching without consent;

forcing someone to perform a sexual act;

forcing someone to see a sexual act including the use of electronic media; and

sexual behaviour to which a person has not agreed.

Sexual harassment: In accordance with the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld), sexual harassment is any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature in relation to a person in circumstances where a reasonable person would have anticipated the possibility that the other person would be offended, humiliated or intimidated by the conduct. It can be a single incident or a persistent pattern and can range from subtle behaviour to explicit demands for sexual activity. Examples of sexual harassment include:

inappropriate jokes or comments with sexual connotations;

the display of offensive material;

stares and leers or offensive hand or body gestures;

comments and questions about another person’s sexual conduct and/or private relationships that are intrusive;

persistent unwelcome invitations;

requests for sexual favours;

offensive written, telephone or electronic mail or any other electronic means of communication, including pictures or videos of body parts or sexualised activities;

unnecessary close physical proximity including persistently following a person;

unwelcome physical contact such as brushing against or touching a person;

denigrating comments regarding a person’s gender or sexual preference; or

negative behaviours, e.g., intimidation or exclusions related to the sex or gender diversity of the recipient.

Student conduct: Students are expected to behave in accordance with the expectations outlined in Section 5.1 of the Student Conduct – Governing Policy.

Suspension from the University, usually for misconduct, is a cancellation of enrolment for a specified period, after which the student may seek re-enrolment. Suspension may also involve removal of access to the University’s premises and facilities for a period of time.

Unreasonable behaviour means behaviour that a reasonable person, having considered the circumstances, would see as unreasonable, including behaviour that is victimising, humiliating, intimidating or threatening.

4. Student conduct and suspected general misconduct

4.1 Prevention of general misconduct

4.1.1 As members of a University community that values a safe environment, it is vital that students act with courtesy, fairness, and respect in all University activities, in accordance with the Student Conduct – Governing Policy.

4.1.2 Safer Communities contributes to the University’s commitment to protecting the health, safety, and wellbeing of students. Safer Communities takes a whole‑of‑person approach to education and offers a variety of services, including:

(a) counselling and psychological interventions;

(b) workshops and student training;

(c) advice regarding the complaints resolution process;

(d) self‑help resources; and

(e) referral to appropriate external service providers.

4.2 Departures from acceptable student conduct

4.2.1 General misconduct refers to behaviour that deviates from the expected standards of student conduct set out in the Student Conduct – Governing Policy, or behaviour that adversely affects members of the University community or their engagement in University life.

4.2.2 Refer to Schedule A – Types of general misconduct for guidance on the types of behaviours that can constitute general misconduct under these procedures.

4.3 Categorisation of general misconduct

4.3.1 General misconduct matters are classified according to their level of severity as:

(a) minor;

(b) moderate; or

(c) serious.

4.3.2 Minor

4.3.2.1 Minor general misconduct matters typically involve low‑impact, seemingly unintentional behaviour by the student. They generally arise where the student has not previously been the subject of a general misconduct allegation.

4.3.2.2 Classifications of minor general misconduct are made by the Academic Registrar and Director, Student Services, or the Coordinator, Student Grievances.

4.3.4 Moderate

4.3.4.1 Moderate general misconduct matters are more significant than minor misconduct but do not pose a substantial risk to the safety of members of the University community or the University. They typically involve behaviour of moderate impact where there can be intent, but not ill intent. Examples include:

(a) repeated or disruptive behaviour;

(b) inappropriate or disrespectful communication with staff or other students;

(c) misuse of University resources or facilities; or

(d) not following a reasonable request or direction.

4.3.4.2 Classifications of moderate general misconduct are made by the Academic Registrar and Director, Student Services.

4.3.5 Serious

4.3.5.1 Serious general misconduct matters involve behaviour that poses a significant risk to the safety, wellbeing, or functioning of members of the University community or the University. Such matters typically involve high‑impact behaviour and can include intentional or reckless actions. Examples include behaviour that:

(a) threatens safety;

(b) causes significant disruption or damage;

(c) involves harassment, discrimination, or violence; or

(d) represents a serious breach of University policies or reasonable directions.

4.3.5.2 Classifications of serious general misconduct are made by the Academic Registrar and Director, Student Services.

4.4 Summarily dealing with general misconduct

4.4.1 Immediate action can be taken when a student engages in behaviour that is:

(a) disruptive;

(b) inappropriate; or

(c) involves misuse of University facilities, services, or premises.

4.4.2 When a student’s behaviour is disruptive during a University activity, the staff member responsible for that activity can direct the student to leave for the remainder of the activity. University activities can include:

(a) teaching activities;

(b) research activities;

(c) examinations;

(d) official meetings;

(e) ceremonies; or

(f) other formal proceedings.

4.4.3 When a student’s behaviour involves misuse of University facilities, services, or premises, a member of the University’s executive or senior staff with responsibility for the operation or management of those facilities, services, or premises can temporarily suspend the student’s access for up to 5 business days. Facilities, services, and premises covered can include:

(a) library facilities;

(b) information technology services; and

(c) other University‑managed facilities, services, or premises.

4.4.4 Staff members should identify the student, where possible, and provide the student with a written record of the incident or decision, including the reasons for it, within one business day. The staff member must also inform the student that the matter is being reported to the Academic Registrar and Director, Student Services, as it requires initial examination for suspected general misconduct.

4.4.5 The staff member must provide the Academic Registrar and Director, Student Services with details of the suspected general misconduct within 5 business days of the incident so the matter can be reviewed and, when appropriate, progressed under the general misconduct process.

4.5 Interim suspension - general misconduct

4.5.1 When suspected general misconduct presents a substantial risk, the Deputy Vice‑Chancellor (Academic) can, when necessary for the management and good governance of the University, immediately suspend the student for an initial period of up to 5 business days, or for a longer period following completion of a risk assessment. A substantial risk can include:

(a) harm to the health, welfare, and safety of the student or any other person who is:

(i) on University premises;
(ii) using University facilities or services; or
(iii) engaging in University activities or an activity affiliated with the University;
(b) damage to University property, or property on University premises; or
(c) disruption of a University activity.

4.5.2 An interim suspension can suspend, restrict, or limit a student in relation to their:

(a) attendance at classes, field work, placements, or other University activities;
(b) enrolment or re‑enrolment in a course or program;
(c) access to, or use of, University property or facilities;
(d) access to, or contact with, other students and staff; and
(e) any other terms and conditions that are reasonable in the circumstances.

4.5.3 An interim suspension must:

(a) be proportionate to the circumstances;
(b) consider the student’s human rights in accordance with the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld);
(c) be imposed for a specified time, initially up to 5 business days;
(d) be reconsidered at the discretion of the Deputy Vice‑Chancellor (Academic), informed by the investigation into suspected general misconduct as outlined in Section 4.7 – Initial examination and investigation of general misconduct; and
(e) be revoked, varied, or extended considering any changes in circumstances, including the continued likelihood of any risks.

4.5.4 When an interim suspension is imposed, the student must be notified of:

(a) the type of suspension and any terms or conditions that apply;
(b) a summary of the suspected general misconduct to which the interim suspension relates;
(c) an invitation to be heard regarding the implementation of the interim suspension, including opportunities to:

(i) attend an interview (at least 3 business days after the notice); and
(ii) provide a written response (at least 2 business days after the notice); and

(d) advice that:

(i) a support person or an advocate can attend the interview, noting they must not be legally trained as outlined in Section 4.9.4 – Support persons and advocates; and
(ii) when the student does not respond, the University makes one final reasonable attempt to contact them before proceeding with a determination in their absence.

4.5.5 When determining the outcome of an interim suspension reconsideration, the Deputy Vice‑Chancellor (Academic) must consider any information provided by the student and any further information gathered by the University.

4.5.6 An interim suspension reconsideration can result in:

(a) revocation (cancellation);
(b) variation of the restriction or limitation as outlined in clause 4.5.2; or
(c) extension of the suspension for a specified period of time or until:

(i) the determination letter for the suspected general misconduct matter has been issued to the student; or
(ii) the appeal process for substantiated general misconduct has concluded.

4.5.7 The student must be advised in writing of the outcome of an interim suspension reconsideration.

4.5.8 When an interim suspension greater than 5 business days is imposed, the outcome letter must clearly state:

(a) the terms and conditions that apply; and
(b) the reasons for the extended suspension.

4.5.9 An interim suspension ends at 5:00 pm on:

(a) the expiry date stated on the notice;
(b) the date it is revoked; or
(c) the date the investigation of the suspected general misconduct is finalised as outlined in Section 4.7 – Initial examination and investigation of general misconduct.

4.5.10 A decision of the Deputy Vice‑Chancellor (Academic) to impose an interim suspension is not subject to any University appeal or review in accordance with the Student Complaints Resolution – Academic Policy and Procedures.

4.6 Reporting suspected general misconduct

4.6.1 University staff should report suspected general misconduct as soon as possible, preferably within 5 business days, by emailing the Academic Registrar and Director, Student Services at AcademicRegistrar@usc.edu.au.

4.6.2 Students can report suspected general misconduct by:

(a) emailing the Academic Registrar and Director Student Services via AcademicRegistrar@usc.edu.au

(b) raising a complaint in accordance with the Student Complaints Resolution - Procedures;

(c) making an anonymous report through the Safer Communities webpage;

(d) calling Safe UniSC or using the Safe Zone app if they feel there is an immediate threat to their safety. Alternatively, they can call 000 and ask to speak to the police;

(e) speaking to a trusted member of staff who can refer students to appropriate services; or

(f) contacting Safer Communities for confidential support and advice on (07) 5430 1226. Students can lodge an anonymous or de-identified report of suspected student general misconduct with this team.

4.6.3 Other members of the University community or external individuals can report suspected general misconduct by emailing the Academic Registrar and Director, Student Services at AcademicRegistrar@usc.edu.au.

4.6.4 University community members and external individuals are encouraged to report suspected general misconduct as soon as possible and no later than 12 months from the date of the alleged incident, unless otherwise prescribed in another policy document.

4.6.5 Reports lodged outside the prescribed timeframe require approval by the Academic Registrar and Director, Student Services before the matter can continue under the general misconduct process, to ensure it is still practicable for the University to investigate. Evidence should be provided to show that circumstances outside the reporter’s control prevented timely submission.

4.7 Initial examination and investigation of general misconduct

4.7.1 Initial examination

4.7.1.1 Within 10 business days of receiving a report of suspected general misconduct, the Academic Registrar and Director, Student Services, or Coordinator, Student Grievances, commences an initial examination and decides whether:

(a) no further action is required and matter is closed;

(b) the suspected general misconduct should be referred for mediation or conciliation as outlined in Section 6.1 – Mediation or conciliation;

(c) the suspected general misconduct should be addressed through an alternative University process, such as another University policy document or local‑level resolution, when this is a more appropriate pathway. At the conclusion of the alternative process, the suspected general misconduct can be reconsidered when concerns remain;

(d) the suspected general misconduct constitutes minor general misconduct, in which case the Coordinator, Student Grievances manages the matter as outlined in Section 4.10 – Determination and outcome of general misconduct; or

(e) the suspected general misconduct should proceed to investigation, in accordance with Section 4.7.2 - Investigation when classified as moderate or serious.

4.7.1.2 Records of the initial investigation completed for each suspected general misconduct matter considered and the decision made, must be maintained in accordance with Section 14 – Recordkeeping and reporting.

4.7.2 Investigation

4.7.2.1 When a matter is referred for investigation under clause 4.7.1.1, the investigation is conducted by the Academic Registrar and Director, Student Services, or the Coordinator, Student Grievances, in accordance with the principles of procedural fairness.

4.7.2.2 The investigation process involves making enquiries and gathering evidence to enable a determination, on the balance of probabilities, as to whether some or all of the suspected general misconduct occurred. Evidence can include:

(a) documented oral evidence (witness recollections);
(b) documentary evidence;
(c) expert evidence.

4.7.2.3 A complete record of the investigation must be maintained by documenting each step taken, including:

(a) discussions;
(b) phone calls;
(c) interviews;
(d) decisions; and
(e) conclusions.

4.7.2.4 Following the investigation, the Academic Registrar and Director, Student Services decides whether:

(a) there is no case to answer and, if appropriate, advise the student that no further action is warranted;

(b) the suspected general misconduct should be referred for mediation or conciliation in accordance with Section 6.1 – Mediation or conciliation;

(c) the suspected general misconduct constitutes minor general misconduct, in which case the Coordinator, Student Grievances manages the matter as outlined in Section 4.10 – Determination and outcome of general misconduct;

(d) the suspected general misconduct should be considered as an allegation of moderate general misconduct and the student is issued an allegation letter for an interview conducted by the Academic Registrar and Director, Student Services in accordance with Section 4.8 – Issuing an allegation letter for general misconduct; or

(e) the suspected general misconduct should be considered as an allegation of serious general misconduct and the student is issued an allegation letter for a hearing conducted by the Student General Misconduct Committee in accordance with Section 4.8 – Issuing an allegation letter for general misconduct.

4.8 Issuing an allegation letter for general misconduct

4.8.1 An allegation letter must be sent to the student’s UniSC email address within 5 business days of the decision to proceed with allegations of moderate or serious general misconduct, as outlined in clause 4.7.2.3. All University correspondence sent to this address is deemed to have been received in accordance with the Acceptable Use of ICT Resources – Operational Policy and Procedures.

4.8.2 The allegation letter must include all information the decision‑maker considers when making a determination, including:

(a) the type of alleged general misconduct, as defined in these procedures or other relevant policy documents;
(b) the details of the alleged general misconduct, including where and when it occurred;
(c) all information and documentary evidence relevant to the alleged general misconduct;
(d) links to the relevant policy documents;
(e) details of how the student can respond to the allegations, as outlined in clause 4.8.3;
(f) advice about having a support person during the interview or hearing, noting that a support person must not be legally trained, as outlined in Section 4.9.4 – Support persons and advocates;
(g) information about assistance and support available to the student, as outlined in Section 7 – Student support;
(h) advice on possible outcomes, as outlined in Section 4.10 – Determination and outcome of general misconduct and Appendix 016 – Authorised approval of penalties;
(i) advice that new information obtained during the general misconduct process or in response to the allegations can result in a reclassification of the alleged general misconduct; and
(j) advice on inviting witnesses and questioning during the interview or hearing, as outlined in Section 4.9 – General misconduct interview and hearing.

4.8.3 The allegation letter must explain how the student can respond to the allegation and state the timeframe for their response. Students can respond by:

(a) providing a written response by email; and/or
(b) participating in the interview or hearing arranged in accordance with the investigation decision made as outlined in clause 4.7.2.4, being:

(i) an interview conducted by the Academic Registrar and Director, Student Services, for alleged moderate general misconduct; or
(ii) a hearing conducted by the Student General Misconduct Committee for alleged serious general misconduct.

4.8.4 When details relevant to the interview or hearing, as outlined in Section 4.9.2 – Scheduling and notification, are not available at the time the allegation letter is issued, the student must be advised that this information will be provided in subsequent correspondence.

4.8.5 When there is no response to the allegation letter, the University must make one final reasonable attempt to contact the student by telephone or email before the scheduled interview or hearing. When there is still no response and the student does not attend, a determination can be made in the student’s absence based on the available evidence, as outlined in Section 4.10 – Determination and outcome of general misconduct.

4.9 General misconduct interview and hearing

4.9.1 Conducting an interview or hearing

4.9.1.1 An interview or hearing for general misconduct is heard by:

(a) the Academic Registrar and Director, Student Services, for alleged moderate general misconduct; or

(b) the Student General Misconduct Committee, for alleged serious general misconduct.

4.9.2 Scheduling and notification

4.9.2.1 The student must be advised — either in the allegation letter or in subsequent correspondence as outlined in clause 4.8.5 — of the following interview or hearing requirements:

(a) the time;

(b) the date;

(c) the location; and

(d) the attendees.

4.9.2.2 An interview or hearing should be scheduled within 15 business days, but not earlier than 5 business days, from the date of the allegation letter. When a student requests a time earlier than 5 business days, an exemption can be applied, subject to availability. Any variations must be documented.

4.9.2.3 Before the interview or hearing commences, the presiding officer must ensure that the student has received the relevant material and understands the interview or hearing process.

4.9.3 Witnesses

4.9.3.1 When the University intends to invite a witness to speak, the student must be informed at least 5 business days before the interview or hearing.

4.9.3.2 Reasonable steps must be taken to minimise the number of times a witness or reporting student recounts a traumatic experience, including accepting a written report instead of requiring attendance.

4.9.3.3 A student can request to invite witnesses to speak at the interview or hearing, at the discretion of the presiding officer.

4.9.3.4 Requests must be submitted at least 5 business days before the interview or hearing and include the names and contact details (email address and phone number) of any proposed witnesses.

4.9.4 Support persons and advocates

4.9.4.1 Students are expected to represent and speak for themselves. A student can have a support person present at the interview or hearing, provided that:

(a) the support person is a representative of the UniSC Student Guild or another person who is not legally trained;
(b) the support person can confer with the student but cannot advocate or speak on their behalf; and
(c) the support person is not under investigation for related general misconduct.

4.9.4.2 A support person can be approved to act as an advocate by the Academic Registrar and Director, Student Services when:

(a) the student has a disability that impacts their ability to advocate for themselves; or
(b) English is not the student’s first language, and advocacy would assist with understanding questions or communicating responses.

4.9.4.3 When an advocate is approved:

(a) the approval applies only to interviews or hearings related to the current alleged general misconduct, and a separate request is required for any subsequent matters;
(b) the advocate can confer with the student and respond on the student’s behalf; and
(c) when a first‑hand account is required, the student can be asked to respond directly.

4.9.4.4. The advocate must comply with all interview or hearing requirements, including any directions issued during the proceedings.

4.9.4.5 Requests for approval must be emailed to the Academic Registrar and Director, Student Services (academicregistrar@usc.edu.au) at least 3 business days before the interview or hearing and must include:

(a) the grounds for the request; and

(b) independent supporting evidence (e.g. a UniSC Medical Certificate completed by a registered medical practitioner).

4.9.4.6 The student is advised of the outcome within 3 business days. When the request relates to a hearing conducted by the Student General Misconduct Committee, the Committee Secretary (StudMisconductHrngs@usc.edu.au) is also notified.

4.9.5 Interview or hearing proceedings

4.9.5.1 During an interview or hearing:

(a) for alleged moderate general misconduct, the Academic Registrar and Director, Student Services acts as the presiding officer and is responsible for:

(i) conducting the interview;
(ii) determining procedural requirements; and
(iii) questioning the student and inviting oral presentations; and

(b) for alleged serious general misconduct, the Student General Misconduct Committee conducts the hearing and makes recommendations to the Academic Registrar and Director, Student Services. The Committee Chairperson acts as the presiding officer and is responsible for:

(i) determining procedural requirements; and
(ii) questioning the student and inviting oral presentations.

4.9.5.2 The composition and requirements of the Student General Misconduct Committee are outlined in the Terms of Reference approved by the Vice‑Chancellor and President.

4.9.5.3 The student can ask questions of any witness through the presiding officer.

4.9.5.4 When suspected general misconduct involves sexual harassment, sexual assault, assault, harassment, bullying, or discrimination, the presiding officer can impose additional arrangements, including:

(a) enabling a reporting student who is present as a witness to respond from another location (e.g., via videoconference) to minimise interaction;
(b) allowing the reporting student to be accompanied by a support person who meets the requirements of Section 4.9.4 – Support persons and advocates; and
(c) implementing any other arrangements necessary to minimise interaction between the reporting student and the student.

4.9.5.5 Procedural fairness must be observed by all participants throughout the interview or hearing.

4.9.6 Recordkeeping

4.9.6.1 A minuted report of the interview or hearing must be prepared and made available to the student upon request.

4.9.7 Attendance

4.9.7.1 The student is not required to attend the interview or hearing. When the student does not attend, and a reasonable attempt to contact them has been made as outlined in clause 4.8.6, a determination or recommendation can be made in the student’s absence, taking into account any written statement provided, as outlined in Section 4.10 – Determination and outcome of general misconduct.

4.9.8 Student General Misconduct Committee recommendations

4.9.8.1 Following a hearing conducted by the Student General Misconduct Committee, the Chairperson provides the Committee’s findings and recommendation in writing to the Academic Registrar and Director, Student Services within 10 business days of:

(a) the conclusion of the hearing;
(b) the student’s response to any further information requested by the Committee (or the due date for that response), as outlined in clause 4.10.1; or
(c) the student’s response to a recommended penalty (or the due date for that response), as outlined in Section 6.3.4 – Imposing a penalty of suspension or expulsion.

4.10 Determination and outcome of general misconduct

4.10.1 Following the interview or hearing, the presiding officer can seek further information or advice as necessary before making a determination or recommendation. The student must be given an opportunity to comment on any additional information prior to the determination being made.

4.10.2 Determination

4.10.2.1 Determinations on suspected general misconduct must be based on established facts, sound reasoning, and relevant evidence which, on the balance of probabilities, indicate whether a departure from acceptable student conduct has occurred.

4.10.2.2 When suspected general misconduct is determined to constitute minor general misconduct, as outlined in Section 4.7 – Initial examination and investigation, the Coordinator, Student Grievances manages the matter as outlined in Section 4.10.4 – Written notification of outcome.

4.10.2.3 For allegations of moderate or serious general misconduct, the Academic Registrar and Director, Student Services determines whether:

(a) the allegation is not substantiated — the evidence does not establish that the alleged misconduct occurred, the matter is concluded, and the student is advised as outlined in Section 4.10.4 – Written notification of outcome; or
(b) the allegation is substantiated — the evidence establishes that some or all of the alleged general misconduct occurred, and the substantiated general misconduct meets the definition of the relevant category. The student is advised of the outcome and any applicable penalty as outlined in Section 4.10.4 – Written notification of outcome.

4.10.2.4 The determination must be reached within 10 business days of:

(a) the interview;
(b) receipt of the Student General Misconduct Committee’s findings and recommendations;
(c) the student’s response to any further information (or the due date for that response), as outlined in clause 4.10.1; or
(d) the student’s response to the recommended penalty (or the due date for that response), as outlined in Section 6.3.5 – Imposing a penalty of suspension or expulsion.

4.10.2.5 When the Academic Registrar and Director, Student Services identifies evidence of additional or revised allegations of general misconduct, these must be considered as a separate matter under Section 4.7 – Initial examination and investigation of general misconduct, and a new allegation letter issued when required.

4.10.2.6 When the Student General Misconduct Committee identifies revised or alternative allegations not included in the original allegation letter, the matter must be referred to the Academic Registrar and Director, Student Services for consideration under Section 4.7 – Initial examination and investigation of general misconduct. Any subsequent hearing must be conducted by Committee members who were not involved in the original hearing.

4.10.3 Application of penalties

4.10.3.1 When general misconduct is substantiated, the decision‑maker must determine the appropriate penalty, considering any mitigating circumstances as outlined in Section 6.3.5 – Factors determining application of penalties.

4.10.3.2 The student’s previous disciplinary record is provided only for the purpose of determining penalties for substantiated general misconduct.

4.10.4 Written notification of outcome

4.10.4.1 The student must be advised in writing of the determination within 10 business days of the decision. The outcome letter must:

(a) provide full details of the determination, including any penalties or educational or remedial actions, and the reasons for the decision;
(b) advise that the student can contact the nominee listed in the letter for clarification about any educational or remedial actions;
(c) when general misconduct is substantiated, advise the student of their right to appeal in accordance with the Student Complaints Resolution – Academic Policy and Procedures, noting that Section 4.10.6 – Appeals outlines applicable timeframes; and
(d) when a penalty of suspension or expulsion is imposed, include:

(i) the date from which the penalty takes effect;
(ii) advice that a Withdrawn by the University (WX) notation is applied to all enrolled courses; and
(iii) advice for international students that the University is required to notify relevant government departments and the penalty can result in visa cancellation.

4.10.4.2 When minor general misconduct is determined, the Coordinator, Student Grievances must issue a written caution that:

(a) confirms the conduct has been determined to constitute minor general misconduct and outlines the required educative support to assist the student to understand appropriate behaviours under the Student Conduct – Governing Policy; and
(b) advises that future breaches can result in substantiated misconduct findings and penalties.

4.10.5 Appeals

4.10.5.1 Students have 20 business days from notification of outcome to lodge an appeal on any substantiated general misconduct finding or penalty, in accordance with the Student Complaints Resolution – Procedures. When there is any inconsistency between policy documents regarding appeal deadlines, the timeframes outlined in this section prevail.

5. Academic integrity and suspected breaches

5.1 Prevention of academic misconduct

5.1.1 As members of a University community that values academic integrity, students must act with honesty, trust, fairness, respect, and responsibility in all academic activities.

5.1.2 Students are responsible for familiarising themselves with the scholarly conventions appropriate to their discipline and the Australian Higher Education environment. This includes learning to use academic referencing systems and apply sound research practices.

5.1.3 The University provides education on academic integrity as an essential component of developing academic skills. The UniSC Library offers training and assistance to support students in developing scholarly research skills.

5.1.4 Academic integrity training modules

5.1.4.1 All students undertaking a coursework program at the University must successfully complete the academic integrity training modules. Successful completion requires achieving the identified scores or meeting other specified criteria. The modules are accessible through the University’s Learning Management System.

5.1.4.2 When a student does not complete the required academic integrity training modules, access to online teaching materials is initially withheld. Access is restored once the modules have been successfully completed.

5.1.4.3 When a student still has not completed the required modules by the end of the first quarter of the study period (e.g., week 3 of a trimester), online teaching materials are released; however, grades for that and subsequent enrolment periods are withheld. Grades are released once the student successfully completes the required modules.

5.1.5 Academic staff play a direct role in supporting students to develop ethical, responsible, and effective academic practices by providing explicit guidance on assessment expectations in each course.

5.1.6 School Deans are responsible for overseeing the provision of discipline‑specific education on academic integrity for both staff and students.

5.1.7 The University implements strategies to reduce opportunities for breaches of academic integrity in assessment and provides training for staff on promoting academic integrity through sound pedagogical practices and rigorous assessment design.

5.2 Departures from acceptable academic conduct

5.2.1 Any departure from student academic integrity has the potential to undermine the academic standards and quality of the University, risks diminishing public trust in the qualifications it awards, and constitutes student academic misconduct.

5.2.2 Types of academic misconduct

5.2.2.1 Academic misconduct includes, but is not limited to:

(a) plagiarism, including using another person’s expression or ideas without appropriate acknowledgement (including the use of generative artificial intelligence without proper attribution);
(b) collusion, being any unauthorised collaboration in the preparation or presentation of work, including knowingly allowing personal work to be copied by others;
(c) cheating, including in examinations or through accessing restricted assessment materials;
(d) falsification or fabrication, including fabricating or falsifying data or work; falsifying or fabricating medical certificates; or otherwise participating in activities intended to give a student an unfair or dishonest advantage in learning activities, assessment, placement, or research;
(e) accessing restricted assessment‑related material, including acquiring or distributing such material without authorisation;
(f) contract cheating, including outsourcing assessment to a third party such as a commercial provider, tutoring service, current or former student, family member, or acquaintance; the unauthorised use of file‑sharing sites; or arranging for another person to undertake an examination on the student’s behalf; and
(g) copyright and access sharing, including sharing copyright course materials with a third party (such as a file‑sharing site or commercial provider) or sharing login details for University systems.

5.2.2.2 Refer to Schedule B – Types of academic misconduct for guidance on the types of behaviours that can constitute academic misconduct under these procedures.

5.2.2.3 The University trusts students to demonstrate their learning honestly; however, when concerns arise, data tools can be used to assist in identifying suspected academic misconduct. Reports generated by such tools must be examined carefully and in context. Academic misconduct is ultimately determined through the academic and evaluative judgement of teaching staff.

5.3 Categorisation of academic misconduct

5.3.1 Academic misconduct matters in coursework and coursework programs are classified according to their level of severity as:

(a) minor;
(b) moderate; or
(c) serious.

5.3.2 Minor

5.3.2.1 Minor academic misconduct is confined to:

(a) instances of poor academic skills that constitute a minor departure from scholarly academic conventions or a failure to comply with specific assessment instructions;
(b) instances characterised by inexperience, lack of student knowledge, or underdeveloped academic skills;
(c) instances occurring in the normal course of learning discipline‑specific techniques, methodologies, and presentation conventions; or
(d) instances where the impact of the incident does not compromise the purpose or integrity of the assessment.

5.3.2.2 Minor academic misconduct is a matter of academic judgement by Course Coordinators and typically arises during the marking process. In cases of minor academic misconduct, the student’s authorship is not disputed; rather, the student has failed to meet the academic standards expected within the discipline. The student’s work must still be awarded a grade or mark.

5.3.3 Moderate

5.3.3.1 Moderate academic misconduct refers to forms of student conduct or attempted conduct that involve deception relating to the authorship of work submitted for assessment. This includes cases where, on the balance of probabilities and supported by relevant evidence, authorship has been misrepresented. Such conduct undermines the learning process and significantly affects the student’s ability to achieve the required learning outcomes.

5.3.3.2 Classifications of moderate academic misconduct are made by the Academic Investigator.

5.3.4 Serious

5.3.4.1 Serious academic misconduct includes forms of conduct in coursework and coursework programs that involve significant deception or an intent to avoid learning. This includes cases where, on the balance of probabilities and based on relevant evidence, an act of deception has occurred in which authorship of assessment has been relinquished, transferred, falsified, or fabricated. Such conduct represents a substantial avoidance of learning and significantly impacts the student’s ability to meet the required learning outcomes.

5.3.4.2 Classifications of serious academic misconduct are made by the Academic Investigator.

5.4. Reporting suspected academic misconduct

5.4.1 University staff or students should report suspected academic misconduct as soon as the concern arises, either verbally or in writing, to the relevant Course Coordinator. All available supporting evidence must be provided at the time of reporting.

5.4.2 When academic misconduct is suspected during an examination, the incident must be reported immediately in accordance with Section 5.9 – Student academic misconduct in central examinations and the Central Examinations – Procedures.

5.5 Initial examination and investigation of academic misconduct

5.5.1 Preliminary analysis

5.5.1.1 The Course Coordinator who receives a report or identifies suspected academic misconduct must promptly gather evidence and make a preliminary analysis to determine whether:

(a) there is no case for the student to answer and the matter proceeds no further; or
(b) there is sufficient evidence that the matter should be investigated.

5.5.1.2 As part of the preliminary analysis, the Course Coordinator:

(a) examines any documentation relating to the suspected academic misconduct, including any report;
(b) checks the information provided to students about the assessment item; and
(c) analyses the assessment item.

5.5.1.3 At this stage, the Course Coordinator must take care to avoid any pre‑judgement of the student or the suspected academic misconduct. Previous allegations or findings of academic misconduct must not be sought or considered. Evidence of prior academic misconduct is only considered when determining penalties.

5.5.1.4 Following the preliminary analysis, the Course Coordinator can determine that:

(a) there is no case for the student to answer and no formal investigation is required;
(b) the suspected academic misconduct constitutes minor academic misconduct, in which case the Course Coordinator manages the matter as outlined in Section 5.8.1 – Management of minor academic misconduct; or
(c) there is evidence to support suspected moderate or serious academic misconduct and the matter must be reported for initial investigation, as outlined in clause 5.5.1.5.

5.5.1.5 When the Course Coordinator determines that there is sufficient evidence to support suspected moderate or serious academic misconduct, they must complete the following actions within 10 business days:

(a) complete and submit a Student Academic Misconduct (SAM) Details Form (login required), ensuring the submission includes:

(i) reasoned and relevant evidence; and
(ii) an optional recommendation for an appropriate penalty, with recommendation requirements outlined in Section 5.8.3 – Application of penalties;

(b) remove any result recorded for the assessment item (if submitted) and replace it with a null result; and when grades are close to release, apply the interim notation Result Withheld (RW) in the grades module; and
(c) advise the student that a suspected academic misconduct matter requiring investigation has been reported, that their result has been withheld, and that support services are available (e.g., Wellbeing, Learning Advice, UniSC Student Guild).

5.5.1.6 When the Course Coordinator is not an ongoing member of staff, the School Dean or Associate Dean (Learning and Teaching) can act on the Course Coordinator’s behalf.

5.5.2 Initial examination

5.5.2.1 Within 10 business days of receiving a report of suspected academic misconduct, the Academic Investigator must commence an initial examination to determine whether the report:

(a) should be dismissed;
(b) should be referred back to the Course Coordinator for clarification of details;
(c) should be referred back to the Course Coordinator to be addressed as minor academic misconduct, as outlined in Section 5.8.1 – Management of minor academic misconduct; or
(d) should proceed to investigation, as outlined in Section 5.5.3 – Investigation, when suspected academic misconduct is considered moderate or serious.

5.5.2.2 When the initial examination determines that the report should be dismissed, the Academic Investigator must notify the relevant parties that no further action is required. The Course Coordinator is responsible for reinstating the result for the assessment task, and the student is informed of the outcome through the appropriate communication process.

5.5.3 Investigation

5.5.3.1 The Academic Investigator cannot investigate suspected academic misconduct after final grades have been released, unless the student has an RW notation or the School Dean or Associate Dean (Learning and Teaching) directs that the investigation continue.

5.5.3.2 The Academic Investigator must conduct the investigation in accordance with the principles of procedural fairness and make enquiries and gather evidence to enable a determination, on the balance of probabilities, as to whether some or all of the suspected academic misconduct occurred. Evidence can include:

(a) documented oral evidence (witness recollections);

(b) documentary evidence; or

(c) expert evidence (e.g., technical advice on data).

5.5.3.3 A complete record of the investigation must be maintained by documenting each step taken, including:

(a) discussions;

(b) phone calls;

(c) interviews;

(d) decisions; and

(e) conclusions.

5.5.3.4 All records must be stored securely to maintain confidentiality, as outlined in Section 10 – Confidentiality and Section 14 – Recordkeeping and reporting.

5.5.3.5 When the Academic Investigator identifies suspected academic misconduct by another party during an investigation:

(a) when the other party is a student enrolled in the same course, the Academic Investigator must report the suspected misconduct to the Course Coordinator, who then submits a Student Academic Misconduct (SAM) Details Form (login required); and

(b) when the other party is not a student in the same course, the Academic Investigator must submit a Student Academic Misconduct (SAM) Details Form (login required) with the approval of the relevant School Dean or Associate Dean (Learning and Teaching).

5.6 Issuing an allegation notice for academic misconduct

5.6.1 When a decision is made to categorise suspected academic misconduct as moderate or serious in accordance with clause 5.5.1.1, an allegation letter must be sent to the student’s UniSC email address. Correspondence sent by the University to this address is deemed to have been received in accordance with the Acceptable Use of ICT Resources – Operational Policy and Procedures.

5.6.2 The allegation letter must include the information to be considered by the decision‑maker, including:

(a) the type of alleged academic misconduct, as defined in Section 5.2 – Departures from acceptable academic conduct and Section 5.3 – Categorisation of academic misconduct;
(b) the details of the alleged academic misconduct, including where and when it occurred;
(c) all information and documentary evidence relevant to the alleged academic misconduct;
(d) links to the relevant policy documents;
(e) details of how the student can respond to the allegations, as outlined in clause 5.6.3;
(f) advice about having a support person during the interview, noting that a student is not entitled to legal representation, as outlined in Section 5.7.3 – Support persons and advocates;
(g) information about the assistance and support available to the student, as outlined in Section 7 – Student support;
(h) advice on possible outcomes, as outlined in Section 5.8 – Determination and outcome of academic misconduct and Appendix 016 – Authorised approval of penalties;
(i) advice that new information obtained during the academic misconduct process, or in response to the allegations, can result in a reclassification of the alleged academic misconduct.

5.6.3 The allegation letter must explain how the student can respond to the allegation and state the timeframe for their response. Students can respond by:

(a) providing a written response to the allegation within 10 business days of the allegation notice, which can include:

(i) a written response addressing the allegation; or

(ii) a written acknowledgement that the alleged moderate or serious academic misconduct matter occurred, with no further explanation required; and/or

(b) attending an interview with the Academic Investigator, noting that scheduling requirements are outlined in Section 5.7.2 – Scheduling and notification. Students who also provide a written response must ensure it is submitted at least 2 business days before the scheduled interview.

5.6.4 When there is no response to the allegation letter, the University must make one final reasonable attempt to contact the student by telephone or email before the scheduled interview. When there is still no response and the student does not attend, a determination can be made in the student’s absence based on the available evidence, as outlined in Section 5.8 – Determination and outcome of academic misconduct.

5.6.5 When an allegation letter relating to suspected serious academic misconduct involving contract cheating is issued to a student who has successfully completed courses, an embargo is placed on the student’s ability to access a current academic transcript.

5.7 Academic misconduct interview

5.7.1 An interview for alleged moderate or serious academic misconduct is conducted by the Academic Investigator, who is responsible for:

(a) conducting the interview;

(b) determining procedural requirements; and

(c) questioning the student and inviting oral responses.

5.7.2 Scheduling and notification

5.7.2.1 The interview can be scheduled for a time either set by the University or requested by the student, subject to availability and the timeframe requirements.

5.7.2.2 The interview must be scheduled no earlier than 10 business days from the date of the allegation notice. When a student requests an earlier interview, an exemption can be applied, subject to availability. Any variations to this timeframe must be documented.

5.7.3 Support persons and advocates

5.7.3.1 Students are expected to represent and speak for themselves. A student can have a support person present at the interview, provided that:

(a) the support person is a representative of the UniSC Student Guild or another person who is not legally trained;

(b) the support person can confer with the student but cannot advocate or speak on the student’s behalf; and

(c) the support person is not under investigation for related academic misconduct.

5.7.3.2 A support person can be approved to act as an advocate by the Academic Registrar and Director, Student Services when:

(a) the student has a disability that impacts their ability to advocate for themselves; or
(b) English is not the student’s first language, and advocacy would assist with understanding questions or communicating responses.

5.7.3.3 When an advocate is approved:

(a) the approval applies only to interviews related to the current alleged academic misconduct, and a separate request is required for any subsequent matters;

(b) the advocate can confer with the student and respond on the student’s behalf; and

(c) when a first‑hand account is required, the student can be asked to respond directly.

5.7.3.4 The advocate must comply with all interview requirements, including any directions issued during the interview.

5.7.3.5 Requests for approval must be emailed to the Academic Registrar and Director, Student Services (academicregistrar@usc.edu.au) at least 3 business days before the interview and must include:

(a) the grounds for the request; and
(b) independent supporting evidence (e.g. a UniSC Medical Certificate completed by a registered medical practitioner).

5.7.3.6 The student is advised of the outcome within 3 business days. The Academic Registrar and Director, Student Services must also advise the Academic Investigator of any approved requests.

5.7.4 Interview proceedings

5.7.4.1 Before commencing the interview, the Academic Investigator must ensure that the student has received the relevant material, understands the interview process, and that any written response provided as outlined in clause 5.6.3 has been received within the required timeframe.

5.7.4.2 When a student elects to participate in an interview, the purpose is to review the available evidence and provide the student with an opportunity to discuss and respond to the alleged academic misconduct. The Academic Investigator then determines whether the alleged academic misconduct is substantiated based on the evidence and the student’s response.

5.7.4.3 During the interview, the Academic Investigator can question the student and invite the student to participate in a learning validation conversation.

5.7.4.4 Following the interview, the Academic Investigator can seek further information or advice as necessary before making a determination. The student must be given the opportunity to comment on any additional information prior to the determination being made.

5.7.5 Recordkeeping

5.7.5.1 A written summary of the interview must be prepared, and a copy is made available to the student when requested.

5.7.6 Attendance

5.7.6.1 The student is not required to attend the interview. When the student does not attend, and a reasonable attempt to contact the student has been made as outlined in clause 5.6.4, a determination can be made in the student’s absence, taking into account any written response provided, as outlined in Section 5.8 – Determination and outcome of academic misconduct.

5.8 Determination and notice for academic misconduct

5.8.1 Management of minor academic misconduct

5.8.1.1 When suspected academic misconduct is determined to constitute minor academic misconduct, the Course Coordinator manages the matter. In doing so, the Course Coordinator can:

(a) meet with the student to discuss the assessment task and identify gaps in academic skills; or
(b) conduct a learning validation conversation.

5.8.1.2 To address substantiated minor academic misconduct, the Course Coordinator can:

(a) require the student to resubmit the assessment task, with a grade/mark awarded relative to achievement against the assessment criteria; or
(b) refer the student to educational resources or academic skills support to improve their future performance, as outlined in Section 6.2 – Educational and remedial actions.

5.8.1.3 When a student has repeated minor academic misconduct across assessments, courses, or programs, the matter can be reclassified as moderate academic misconduct and progressed through the academic misconduct process, as outlined in Section 5.5 – Initial examination and investigation of academic misconduct.

5.8.1.4 The Course Coordinator must submit the Student Academic Misconduct (SAM) Details Form (login required), including all relevant records generated during the preliminary analysis. Minor academic misconduct findings are recorded by Academic Integrity Matters (AIM) for the duration of the student’s current program and are removed upon completion of studies.

5.8.2 Determination

5.8.2.1 Determinations on suspected academic misconduct must be based on established facts, sound reasoning, and relevant evidence which, on the balance of probabilities, indicate whether the student has committed academic misconduct.

5.8.2.2 The determination must be reached within 10 business days of:

(a) completion of the investigation where all evidence has been collated and reviewed;
(b) the student’s response to further information (or the due date for that response), as outlined in clause 5.8.1; or
(c) the student’s response to the recommended penalty (or the due date for that response), as outlined in Section 6.3.5 – Imposing a penalty of suspension or expulsion.

5.8.2.3 The Academic Investigator determines whether:

(a) the allegation of academic misconduct is not substantiated — the evidence does not establish that the alleged misconduct occurred. The matter is concluded, and the student and Course Coordinator are advised of the outcome, as outlined in Section 5.8.4 – Written notification of outcome; or
(b) the allegation of academic misconduct is substantiated — the evidence establishes that some or all of the alleged academic misconduct occurred, and the substantiated academic misconduct meets the definition of the relevant category. The student is advised of the outcome and any applicable penalty, as outlined in Section 5.8.4 – Written notification of outcome.

5.8.2.4 When the Academic Investigator identifies evidence of additional or revised allegations of academic misconduct, these must be considered as a separate matter under Section 5.5 – Initial examination and investigation of academic misconduct, and a new allegation letter issued when required.

5.8.2.5 When the Academic Investigator identifies evidence of alternative allegations of academic misconduct that would not result in a higher minimum penalty being applied, the Academic Investigator can make the relevant determination based on the evidence available. No new investigation is required.

5.8.3 Application of penalties

5.8.3.1 When academic misconduct is substantiated, the decision‑maker must make a determination on penalty, considering the requirements in Section 6.3 – Penalties.

5.8.3.2 The student’s previous disciplinary record is only provided to the decision‑maker when determining appropriate penalties for substantiated academic misconduct.

5.8.3.3 When a Course Coordinator reports suspected moderate or serious academic misconduct, the Course Coordinator can also provide a recommendation for an appropriate penalty should the allegation be substantiated. Any recommendation must include a rationale referencing Section 6 – Penalties for student academic misconduct. The Academic Investigator can take this recommendation into consideration when determining the penalty.

5.8.3.4 When a penalty is to be applied, Academic Integrity Matters (AIM) is responsible for:

(a) ensuring the implementation of penalties that affect a student's enrolment or academic record, including:

(i) a failing grade;
(ii) a Withdrawn by the University (WX) notation;
(iii) suspension; or
(iv) expulsion;

(b) advising the Course Coordinator of the determination; and

(c) advising the relevant School Dean when the penalty is suspension or expulsion.

5.8.3.5 The Course Coordinator is responsible for implementing assessment‑related penalties, including resubmissions or substitute assessment tasks, and updating the assessment item mark as appropriate.

5.8.4 Written notification of outcome

5.8.4.1 The student must be advised in writing of the determination within 10 business days of the decision. The determination notice is emailed to the student’s UniSC email address. The notice must:

(a) provide full details of the determination, including any penalties or associated educational or remedial actions, and the reasons for making the decision;
(b) advise that the student can contact the nominee listed in the letter for clarification about any educational or remedial actions;
(c) when academic misconduct is substantiated, advise the student of their right to appeal in accordance with the Student Complaints Resolution – Academic Policy and Procedures, noting that Section 5.8.5 – Appeals outlines applicable timeframes; and
(d) when the student receives a penalty of either suspension or expulsion, include:

(i) the date from which the suspension or expulsion takes effect;
(ii) advice that the Withdrawn by the University (WX) notation is applied to all enrolled courses; and
(iii) for international students, advice that the University is required to notify relevant government departments and that the penalty can result in visa cancellation.

5.8.5 Appeals

5.8.5.1 Students have 20 business days from the notification of outcome to lodge an appeal on any substantiated academic misconduct finding or penalty, in accordance with the Student Complaints Resolution – Procedures. When there is any inconsistency between policy documents regarding appeal submission deadlines, the timeframes outlined in this section prevail.

5.9 Student academic misconduct in central examinations

5.9.1 Suspected academic misconduct identified during a central examination must be managed in accordance with this section and the Central Examinations – Procedures.

5.9.2 When suspected academic misconduct occurs during a central examination, the invigilator permits the student to complete the examination, provided further misconduct is prevented or any unauthorised material is removed. To maintain the integrity of the examination, the invigilator either issues new examination booklets or answer sheets or clearly marks the point in the student’s work from which the examination resumes.

5.9.3 When a person is found to be impersonating a student during a central examination, the invigilator takes reasonable steps to confiscate the impersonated student’s ID card and asks the person present to identify themself and provide their contact details. The invigilator reports the incident to the Academic Registrar and Director, Student Services immediately after the examination.

5.9.4 When a student is found with unauthorised material during a central examination, the invigilator collects the unauthorised material and prepares a written Incident Report. The confiscated material accompanies the report submitted to the Academic Registrar and Director, Student Services immediately after the examination, and any items of value are returned to the student as soon as possible.

5.9.5 When the person present is not a current UniSC student, the suspected academic misconduct matter proceeds as outlined in Section 8 – Allegations where the student is not currently enrolled.

5.9.6 When the person present leaves the premises without being identified, CCTV footage is accessed for potential identification in accordance with the Security Surveillance Technologies – Operational Policy.

5.9.7 The Academic Register and Director, Student Services forwards the Written Incident report and any other relevant information to Academic Integrity Matters (AIM).

5.9.8 Upon receiving the report, Academic Integrity Matters (AIM):

(a) investigates the report in accordance with the academic misconduct process; and
(b) engages with the Course Coordinator to:

(i) confirm whether any confiscated materials are prohibited items under the examination conditions for the course; and
(ii) provide the Course Coordinator with an opportunity to recommend an appropriate penalty when academic misconduct is substantiated.

5.10 Collusion involving a UniSC student who is not enrolled in the course where the academic misconduct occurred

5.10.1 When an academic misconduct matter involves collusion with another UniSC student who is not enrolled in the course in which the suspected academic misconduct occurred, the Course Coordinator refers the suspected academic misconduct using the same process outlined in Section 5 – Academic integrity and suspected breaches.

5.10.2 When the student is not enrolled in the course in which the academic misconduct was identified, the full range of penalties outlined in Section 6 – Educational, remedial actions and penalties is not available. In these cases, the only penalties that can be applied for substantiated academic misconduct are:

(a) substantiated moderate academic misconduct:

(i) a formal warning; or

(ii) a reprimand.

(b) substantiated serious academic misconduct:

(i) a Withdrawn by the University (WX) grade, where the University withdraws the student from a course due to misconduct;
(ii) suspension; or
(iii) expulsion.

5.11 Feedback to the Course Coordinator

5.11.1 When an assessment task results in a significant number of academic misconduct matters, the Academic Investigator can recommend to the School Dean that the Course Coordinator review the design of the assessment with the Program Coordinator and Associate Dean (Learning and Teaching).

6. Educational, remedial actions and penalties

6.1 Conciliation or mediation

6.1.1 When there is suspected general misconduct involving sexual assault, assault, sexual harassment, harassment, bullying, or discrimination against another student or staff member, the Academic Registrar and Director, Student Services, or the Coordinator, Student Grievances considers whether conciliation or mediation is appropriate in the circumstances.

6.1.2 Factors that guide the Academic Registrar and Director, Student Services, or the Coordinator, Student Grievances in deciding whether conciliation or mediation is appropriate include:

(a) the wishes of the involved parties;
(b) the seriousness of the allegations;
(c) the context in which the incident occurred;
(d) the extent of evidence supporting the allegations;
(e) whether the facts are contested; and
(f) any concerns about the wellbeing or safety of the complainant or other members of the University community.

6.1.3 Conciliation or mediation is only considered when all parties are willing to participate and there is sufficient common ground to support the possibility of a positive outcome.

6.1.4 When a general misconduct matter is resolved between the parties, they provide the resolution in writing to the Academic Registrar and Director, Student Services, or the Coordinator, Student Grievances to confirm that no further action is required.

6.1.5 When a general misconduct matter remains unresolved between the parties, the Academic Registrar and Director, Student Services, or the Coordinator, Student Grievances reconsiders the categorisation of the suspected general misconduct, as outlined in Section 4.7 – Initial examination and investigation of general misconduct.

6.2 Educational and remedial actions

6.2.1 When an allegation of student misconduct is substantiated, any remedial actions required of the student are educational in intent and designed to prevent further misconduct.

6.2.2 When the remedial action relates to minor academic misconduct, the Course Coordinator contacts the student to discuss academic integrity issues and how the student can implement strategies to avoid future occurrences.

6.2.3 The Course Coordinator or Academic Investigator can recommend educational or remedial actions to the student for substantiated academic misconduct. When the student completes the recommended actions, the decision-maker can suspend or withdraw the academic misconduct determination.

6.2.4 Remedial actions for moderate academic misconduct focus on strengthening the student’s academic or research skills and promoting responsible academic practices.

6.2.5 Educational or remedial actions can include requiring the student to:

(a) attend an academic skills workshop;

(b) participate in a tutorial or online tutorial on plagiarism and referencing;

(c) attend counselling or support sessions;

(d) complete targeted educative modules; or

(e) undertake additional learning or training activities identified by the decision-maker.

6.3 Penalties

6.3.1 Penalties can be applied alone or in combination with educational or remedial actions, when appropriate. Decision‑makers can require evidence that the student has completed any remedial actions before readmission or reapplication for entry is considered.

6.3.2 When student misconduct is substantiated, penalties are applied in accordance with Appendix 016 – Authorised approval of penalties. Factors guiding the application of penalties are outlined in Section 6.3.5 – Factors determining application of penalties.

6.3.3 Imposing a penalty of suspension or expulsion

6.3.3.1 When a penalty of suspension or expulsion is recommended, the student must be advised in writing and provided with information on the process for responding to the proposed penalty, as outlined in Section 6.3.5 – Factors determining application of penalties. The student has 10 business days to submit their written response.

6.3.3.2 When the student’s written submission is received, it is considered in accordance with Section 6.3.5 – Factors determining application of penalties by:

(a) for general misconduct: the Chairperson of the Student General Misconduct Committee; or

(b) for academic misconduct: the Academic Investigator under delegation from the Academic Misconduct Panel, (comprising a Chair who is a senior academic from outside the School, the Dean, and the discipline‑specific Program Coordinator and/or Discipline Lead). Delegation is provided to the Academic Integrity Investigator to action the decision.

6.3.3.3 After considering the student’s submission, the recommended penalty can be confirmed or amended.

6.3.3.4 When the decision‑maker’s final recommendation is to impose suspension or expulsion, a written request must be submitted to the Deputy Vice‑Chancellor (Academic) for approval. The request must include:

(a) a summary of the substantiated misconduct, including the relevant findings and category of misconduct;
(b) the evidence relied upon in reaching the determination;
(c) the rationale for the finding of misconduct;
(d) the recommended penalty and the justification for that penalty, having regard to the factors in Section 6.3.5 – Factors determining application of penalties;
(e) any mitigating or aggravating circumstances considered; and
(f) for suspension, any conditions to be completed prior to readmission (e.g., educational or remedial actions, behavioural expectations, or risk‑related conditions)

6.3.3.5 The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) reviews the written request and makes the final determination on the alleged student misconduct and, when substantiated, the appropriate penalty.

6.3.3.6 When the Deputy Vice‑Chancellor (Academic) determines that a higher penalty than the one recommended is warranted, the student must be advised in writing and provided with an opportunity to submit a response, as outlined in clause 6.3.3.1. The student has 10 business days to respond, and any submission received is considered before the penalty is finalised.

6.3.3.7 The Deputy Vice‑Chancellor (Academic) determines when the suspension or expulsion takes effect, taking into account:

(a) how far into the teaching period the student is; and
(b) the nature and impact of the substantiated student misconduct on the University community.

6.3.3.7 The student can continue their enrolment in other courses during the study period in which the misconduct was reported, until the effective date of the suspension or expulsion.

6.3.3.8 Readmission after suspension or expulsion, is managed in accordance with the Admissions - Procedures.

6.3.4 Imposing a penalty of rescission of an award

6.3.4.1 The University may rescind a conferred award. The decision to rescind an award is made by the University Council on the recommendation of the Chairperson of Academic Board. The recommendation must include:

(a) a summary of the substantiated student misconduct;

(b) the evidence relied upon in reaching the determination;

(c) the rationale for rescinding the award; and

(d) any relevant mitigating or contextual information.

6.3.5 Factors determining application of penalties

6.3.5.1 The decision‑maker determines an appropriate penalty by considering the evidence and the following factors:

(a) the student’s level of experience in higher education;
(b) the nature, seriousness and extent of the misconduct;
(c) whether it is reasonable to question the student’s authorship, contribution or actions;
(d) whether the conduct was deliberate, reckless or premeditated;
(e) whether the misconduct involved intentional wrongdoing;
(f) the student’s prior misconduct history, including completion of previously required remedial actions;
(g) whether the misconduct relates to a professional competency assessment in an accredited program;
(h) the impact of the conduct on others or on the University community;
(i) any mitigating circumstances supported by evidence; and
(j) relevant human rights considerations, including those under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

6.3.5.2 When new, relevant information becomes available after a penalty has been imposed, the decision‑maker can review the initial penalty and determine an alternative penalty when appropriate.

6.3.6 Clarification of penalties

6.3.6.1 Penalties involving resubmission or a substitute assessment task, as outlined in Appendix 016 – Authorised approval of penalties, are not available when:

(a) the assessment item is a final examination; or
(b) the task assesses professional competencies in a limited‑grade course.

6.3.6.2 When a penalty of resubmission or a substitute assessment task is determined, the Course Coordinator must assess the work using the standard criteria, standards and feedback processes for the course:

(a) In standard‑graded courses:

(i) the maximum possible result is 50% of the assessment value;
(ii) outcomes above 50% are recorded as 50%;
(iii) outcomes below 50% are recorded as half of the grade achieved.

(b) In limited‑grade courses, the resubmitted or substitute task can only be assessed as pass or fail.

6.3.6.3 Substantiated academic misconduct involving contract cheating is deemed serious misconduct. The minimum penalty available under Appendix 016 – Authorised approval of penalties is suspension of enrolment for three consecutive trimesters, unless a lesser penalty is justified after applying the factors outlined in Section 6.3.5 – Factors determining application of penalties.

6.3.7 Concurrent allegations of academic misconduct

6.3.7.1 When a student has concurrent allegations of academic misconduct—such as allegations relating to different assessment tasks or courses within the same teaching period—the concurrent allegations are not counted as prior history when determining penalties.

6.3.7.2 When concurrent allegations result in multiple substantiated findings, each substantiated finding is treated as a separate prior incident for determining penalties in any future substantiated academic misconduct matters.

6.3.7.3 Examples illustrating the treatment of concurrent findings:

(a) Example 1:

Student A has no prior misconduct history. In Trimester 2, two concurrent academic misconduct matters are substantiated. For those two matters, Student A is treated as having no prior history. For any subsequent misconduct, Student A is treated as having two prior substantiated findings.

(b) Example 2:

Student B has one prior substantiated misconduct finding. In Trimester 2, two concurrent academic misconduct matters are substantiated. For those matters, Student B is treated as having one prior history. For any subsequent misconduct, Student B is treated as having three prior substantiated findings.

6.3.7.4 When additional incidents of academic misconduct are substantiated after a suspension or expulsion penalty has been determined, but before it has been implemented, a Withdrawn by the University (WX) notation is recorded on the student’s official academic record for each relevant course

6.3.8 Availability of penalties

6.3.8.1 When a Course Coordinator is unable to implement a determined penalty, they must submit a written justification through the relevant School Dean to the Deputy Vice‑Chancellor (Academic).

6.3.8.2 When the justification is accepted, the penalty is revised to a formal warning, which can include educational or remedial actions.

7. Student support

7.1 Students are encouraged to seek advice from the UniSC Student Guild before responding to allegations of student misconduct.

7.2 Students should contact the UniSC Student Guild with sufficient notice to allow time for advice to be provided before the response deadline indicated in the allegation letter.

7.3 Students can seek assistance from the UniSC Student Guild in preparing their response to an allegation. However, the student’s formal written response must be authored by the student. The response and any supporting evidence must not be prepared through legal representation.

7.4 Students involved in student misconduct processes may require additional support. Safer Communities provides support tailored to individual needs, and further information is available on the Health and Wellbeing webpage. Students at the UniSC Adelaide campus can access support through the Adelaide Campus Support Services webpage.

7.5 Safer Communities can assist students to address factors that have impacted their academic performance and to develop strategies to support future success.

8. Allegations where the student is not currently enrolled

8.1 When a student is not currently enrolled, the student misconduct process can continue as if the student were enrolled. This includes circumstances where the student:

(a) has been admitted but is not enrolled in the current teaching period;
(b) has cancelled their enrolment;
(c) has withdrawn from the course or program in which the alleged misconduct occurred; or
(d) is on an approved leave of absence.

8.2 When a report of suspected student misconduct relates to a student who is no longer enrolled, the decision‑maker can defer progressing the matter until the student applies for readmission to the University.

8.3 When suspected student misconduct is categorised as serious and concerns a student who has completed their studies but whose award has not yet been conferred, graduation must be delayed until the matter is finalised. When the allegation is substantiated, graduation is subject to any penalty imposed under Section 6.3 – Penalties.

8.4 When suspected student misconduct is categorised as serious and concerns a person who has already graduated, the relevant student misconduct process must be followed to determine whether the allegation is substantiated. All reasonable efforts must be made to contact the graduate, provide the required notices, and offer an opportunity to respond.

8.5 When the imposition of a penalty results in the graduate no longer meeting the requirements for the award, the University must follow the process for rescinding an award as outlined in Section 6.3.4 – Rescission of an award.

8.6 When a substantiated finding of academic misconduct involves collusion with a person who is not enrolled at the University, the Academic Investigator must provide a report with recommendations to the relevant School Dean and the Deputy Vice‑Chancellor (Academic). The Deputy Vice‑Chancellor (Academic) can seek legal advice to determine whether further action should be pursued.

9. Conflict of interest

9.1 All University community members participating in the student misconduct process must ensure they do not have an actual or perceived conflict of interest, in accordance with the Conflict of Interest – Governing Policy and Procedures. When a conflict of interest arises, it must be reported immediately and the matter reassigned to an appropriate University community member.

10. Confidentiality

10.1 All information related to reports, investigations, and outcomes of student misconduct matters must remain confidential in accordance with the Privacy and Right to Information – Operational Policy. Information can only be released to a third party or external agency when:

(a) required by a legal or accreditation obligation; or
(b) the student has provided express written consent.

10.2 The University can disclose student information as necessary for managing student misconduct processes, in accordance with the Student Privacy Statement and Enrolment Declaration, the Privacy and Right to Information – Operational Policy, and the Privacy Management – Procedures. This includes circumstances where information provided to a student about a misconduct matter identifies, or could identify, other students.

10.3 Students should discuss student misconduct matters only with individuals directly supporting them, who are also expected to maintain confidentiality. These individuals can include:

(a) a nominated support person or advocate;

(b) University student support services;

(c) a counsellor or medical practitioner; or

(d) an immediate family or household member.

11. Extension of deadlines

11.1 Before the expiry of any deadline within the relevant student misconduct process, the staff member managing the student misconduct matter can request an extension in writing from the Academic Registrar and Director, Student Services.

11.2 The Academic Registrar and Director, Student Services can extend the deadline when satisfied that:

(a) a reasonable attempt has been made to consult the student about the proposed extension; and

(b) the student’s ability to address the allegations is not impaired.

11.3 Students can request an extension of time by contacting the staff member managing their student misconduct matter, who is responsible for determining whether the delay is reasonable.

12. Maintaining student enrolment

12.1 When a student misconduct matter, or a subsequent appeal, is in progress, the University normally maintains the student’s eligible enrolment. The University is not required to permit participation in educational activities for students who are subject to an interim suspension under Section 4.5 – Interim suspension – general misconduct.

13. Repayment of fees

13.1 No fees paid by a student for a period in which their enrolment is suspended as a result of substantiated misconduct are refundable or repayable to the student, in accordance with the Student Fees, Charges and Refunds – Procedures.

13.2 No fees paid by a student are refundable or repayable when the student is expelled from the University, in accordance with the Student Fees, Charges and Refunds – Procedures.

14. Recordkeeping and reporting

14.1 All records relating to both substantiated and not‑substantiated student misconduct must be captured in an approved records management system, in accordance with the Records Management – Procedures and Data Classification – Procedures. Records must be complete, accurate, and sufficient to demonstrate:

(a) the decision‑making process;

(b) the actions taken;

(c) the evidence considered; and

(d) all correspondence with the student.

14.2 Summary data for each substantiated instance of student misconduct (minor, moderate or serious), and any associated educational or remedial actions and penalties, is recorded for annual reporting purposes. Recorded data can include:

(a) student’s name and ID;
(b) form of misconduct (e.g., cheating, collusion, plagiarism, other);
(c) category of misconduct (minor, moderate or serious);
(d) course(s) in which the misconduct occurred;
(e) Course Coordinator;
(f) a brief description of the report;
(g) location;
(h) teaching period and year;
(i) the determination, including the name of the decision‑maker and the date;
(j) all relevant documents relating to the substantiated report.

14.3 The Office of the Academic Registrar and Director, Student Services maintains a register summarising all deliberations, findings and decisions of general misconduct for reporting purposes.

14.4 Academic Integrity Matters (AIM) provides School Deans with trimester reports on the outcome of allegations of academic misconduct investigated by the unit.

14.5 The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) reports to the Council annually, summarising the nature of the student misconduct and any decisions or findings made.

14.6 The Deputy Vice‑Chancellor (Academic) reports annually to the Academic Board, summarising academic misconduct matters and outcomes. Individuals involved are not identified in these reports.

14.7 De‑identified summaries of academic misconduct matters and outcomes are published on the University website under a publication scheme approved by the Deputy Vice‑Chancellor (Academic).

14.8 Academic misconduct information and records are classified as confidential, in accordance with the Data Classification - Procedures. Access requests are managed by Academic Integrity Matters (AIM) and must be approved by the General Manager, CSALT. AIM also notifies relevant system administrators of any changes to staff access.

15. Authorities and responsibilities

15.1 As the Approval Authority, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) approves these procedures to operationalise the Student Conduct – Governing Policy.

15.2 As the Responsible Executive Member the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) can approve guidelines to further support the operationalisation of these procedures. All procedures and guidelines must be compatible with the provisions of the policy they operationalise.

15.3 As the Designated Officer the Academic Registrar and Director Student Services can approve associated documents to support the application of these procedures.

15.4 These procedures operate from the last amended date. All previous iterations of procedures on student misconduct are replaced and no longer operate from that date.

15.5 All records relating to the student misconduct must be stored and managed in accordance with the Records Management - Procedures.

15.6 These procedures must be maintained in accordance with the University Policy Documents – Procedures and reviewed on a shortened one-year policy review cycle.

15.7 Any exception to these procedures to enable a more appropriate outcome must be approved in accordance with the University Policy Documents – Procedures prior to any deviation from these procedures.

15.8 Refer to University Delegations – Governing Policy in relation to the approved delegations and authorisations relevant to these procedures.

16. Appendices and supporting documents

Schedule A – Types of general misconduct

Schedule B – Types of academic misconduct

Appendix 016 – Authorised approval of penalties

MyUniSC – Academic integrity & student academic misconduct (SAM) page (login required)

END