Monday 19 October: Complaint form offline

The supplier of our case management system has confirmed that they are experiencing a significant technical issue.

At present, we have no access to the case management system and we are currently unable to provide updates on existing cases.

We are planning on the basis that this could continue for a period of time including for the remainder of this week.

If you would like to check if your complaint is ready for the SPSO or enquire about making a new complaint, please complete our Complaint Checker.  

Please be assured we are doing all we can and will provide updates on our website. 

For an all service update: Service update | SPSO

Decision report 201200580

  • Case ref:
    201200580
  • Date:
    December 2012
  • Body:
    University of St Andrews
  • Sector:
    Universities
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    plagiarism and intellectual property

Summary

Mr C was a PhD student at the university. Following submission of his thesis, he was accused of academic misconduct (plagiarism - passing off someone else's work as one's own) and his case was considered at a hearing by the university board of adjudication. Mr C was found guilty and the board decided that his studies should be terminated, with no right to complete his doctoral programme. Mr C appealed against the decision, but his appeal was not upheld.

Mr C raised a number of complaints about the procedure that the university followed when considering his case and about the validity of the sanction applied. He also complained that he was required to submit an electronic version of his thesis prior to his viva (oral examination) potentially making it vulnerable to copyright infringements.

We were satisfied that the university were able to demonstrate that they had followed the procedures set out in their academic misconduct policy and that the correct staff were involved at each stage. We were also satisfied that exceptional personal circumstances, disclosed by Mr C in his appeal, were adequately taken into account. Although we found that the sanction applied in Mr C's case was worded incorrectly, its intention was clearly stated and Mr C was not disadvantaged by the error.

With regard to the requirement to submit an electronic version of his thesis, we found that Mr C was asked to do this but when he declined, the university noted his position and proceeded with their review of his case. Although electronic copies are not normally required at this stage, we found the reasons for the university's request to be legitimate and their subsequent action to be reasonable.

Updated: March 13, 2018