Student brings High Court case against university which twice found him guilty of plagiarism

Man in his 20s claims decisions of university, fitness-to-practise committee and visiting panel ‘unfair and unjust’

The student was allowed to have his owns notes in the exam and said he did not realise he had been transcribing directly from those of another student. Photograph: iStock
The student was allowed to have his owns notes in the exam and said he did not realise he had been transcribing directly from those of another student. Photograph: iStock

A third-level student has been granted permission to pursue his legal action against his university, staff at which twice found him guilty of plagiarism, claiming he should not have been put before a fitness-to-practise committee.

The student, who is in his 20s, is seeking a High Court order quashing the university’s decision to refer him to its committee and that committee’s subsequent finding that he is unfit to practise during professional placements.

The man, who cannot be identified, attended a plagiarism investigation by the college in September of last year and told them he had attended an exam with a bundle of notes that also contained material provided by another student.

He was allowed to have his owns notes in the exam and said he did not realise he had been transcribing directly from the other student’s notes. He apologised.

READ SOME MORE

The investigating committee said that even if the plagiarism was unintended, it was still an offence. It noted that this was the second incident of plagiarism to have been recorded against him.

The committee referred the matter to the junior dean, who determined that the exam paper submitted was inadmissible and the exam mark was to be zero. The student was told his mark would be capped at a “pass” if he re-sat the exam.

The student claims he believed this was the end of the matter, but the college then wrote to him saying complex issues arose in his record, including that he had falsified his attendance on one occasion. Another issue was that he had misrepresented the school in correspondence related to college fees, the college said.

The background issues amounted to the university having “very significant” concerns about him abiding by the code of conduct for students and the case was referred to the fitness-to-practise committee.

The committee met in November of last year and found that the concerns of the university were well founded and recommended that the applicant be withdrawn from his programme. He was not permitted to re-sit outstanding assessments.

The student appealed the committee’s decision but the ruling was approved by a university council in February. The appeal concluded that an “agglomeration of events” amounted to a finding that the applicant was unfit to practise. He then unsuccessfully appealed to a higher “visiting panel” on the grounds of jurisdiction and an alleged breach of fair procedures.

Lawyers for the student said legal proceedings in the matter were issued in the absence of reasons being given for the visiting panel’s decision. He claims the university’s policy outlines that cases of plagiarism should generally be dealt with under the disciplinary regulations and not under the fitness-to-practise policy.

He contends that the decisions of the university, committee and visiting panel were “disproportionate, unreasonable, irrational, ultra vires, unfair and unjust” and were arrived at in breach of his right to fair procedures. He submits that the committee did not identify how a plagiarism offence could be regarded as a threat to safeguarding vulnerable groups or affect public protection and safety.

Ms Justice Mary Rose Gearty permitted him to proceed with his case, which she adjourned to January.