• Section 1 - Purpose and Context
• Delegations
• Section 2 - Definitions
• Section 3 - Scope
• Rights and Responsibilities
• Trauma Informed Approach
• Confidentiality
• Support for Students
• Procedural Fairness
• Restorative Principles
• Section 4 - Procedure
• Service Standards
• Misconduct Procedure Stages and Key actions
• Stage 1: Education and Reporting
• Reporting Misconduct
• Stage 2. Review and Triage
• Stage 3. Engagement and Explanation.
• Restriction Orders
• Short Term Restriction Orders
• Longer-Term Restriction Orders
• Stage 4. Investigation
• Stage 5: Finding
• Minimum sanctions
• Notifications
• Stage 6: Appeal
• Stage 7. Reflection and Improvement
• Section 5 - Guidelines
• Section 6 - Terms and Definitions
• Part A - Misconduct Breaches and Possible Sanctions
• Academic Misconduct
• Category One academic misconduct matters include but are not limited to:
• Category Two academic misconduct matters include but are not limited to:
• Research Misconduct
• Category one research misconduct matters include but are not limited to:
• Category two research misconduct matters include but are not limited to:
• General Misconduct
• Category 1 general misconduct matters include but are not limited to:
• Category two General Misconduct matters include but are not limited to:
• Part B -  Authorised Officers. 
• Senior Authorised Officers (SAOs)
• Authorised Officers (AOs)
• Decision Makers for Appeals

Section 1 - Purpose and Context

(1) The Student Misconduct Procedure sets out how Western Sydney University (the University) manages student misconduct and should be read in conjunction with the Student Misconduct Policy.

(2) All suspected misconduct is reported through the Complaints and Misconduct Management System (CMMS) managed by the Conduct and Investigations Office (C&IO), which is responsible for end-to-end case management of all misconduct matters.

(3) Misconduct means any conduct that undermines the academic environment or the principles of honesty, trust, fairness, respect, and responsibility expected from all members of the University community. The University adopts an educative approach for minor academic integrity and behavioural issues under the Inappropriate Behaviour Guidelines (IBG), addressed at the point of origin, typically the school. The Guidelines allow students up to three opportunities to correct their conduct through educative actions before a misconduct allegation is reported.

(4) The Student Misconduct Procedure applies to:

1. Allegations of academic, research, general and sexual misconduct and gender-based violence, as defined in Section 2: Definitions.
2. Student conduct during any activity associated with the University anywhere within or outside Australia, including any off-Campus activity, field work, placements or exchanges or internships with other education providers, institutions or organisations or while using online or social media services monitored or facilitated by the University, or online or social media services that are used by student cohorts.
3. Consistent with the National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender based Violence 2025, the University’s responsibilities extend to gender based violence involving students and staff wherever and whenever it occurs, including outside University activities.
4. All students of the University and to students registered in a University Affiliate Program.

Delegations

(5) Authority provided to officers under this Policy are as follows:

1. Senior Authorised Officers (SAO) are to decide whether allegations have veracity and whether an investigation should proceed. SAOs are decision makers for Category One (C1) and Category Two (C2) cases, including any student misconduct appeals. SAOs have the authority to apply any type of sanction, issuing restriction orders and can recommend the revocation of Awards.  The investigation process is managed by the C&IO Case Manager on behalf of the SAO.
2. Authorised Officers(AOs) are to decide whether allegations have veracity and whether an investigation should proceed. AOs are decision makers on Category One (C1) including any appeals. AOs have the authority to apply relevant sanctions. The investigation process is managed by the C&IO Case Manager on behalf of the AO.
3. Case Managers triage, case manage, and provide end to end management of misconduct matters through the CMMS.
4. The Vice-Chancellor and President is authorised to appoint and remove officers, define delegations, and approve expulsion sanctions.
5. The General Counsel and University Secretary oversees the provision of legal advice and compliance through the Office of General Counsel (OGC) , reviews and approves high risk decisions, provides advice on external escalation, and advises on and reviews misconduct policies and procedures.
6. Complex Case Managers and Case Managers within the Conduct and Investigations Office (C&IO) support Authorised Officers in managing misconduct matters.
7. Security Officers and Security Management on every campus have the delegation to issue a short term Restriction Order including the ability to impose a second short term order if the student repeats the inappropriate behaviour.

Section 2 - Definitions

(6) Definitions relevant to this procedure include:

1. Academic misconduct refers to conduct that breaches any academic policy of the University or in any way undermines or places at risk the academic integrity of any program, subject, assessment or examination or the University's academic reputation. Academic Integrity refers to the expectation that academics, students, researchers, and all members of the academic community act with honesty, trust, fairness, respect and responsibility. Breaching academic integrity constitutes academic misconduct (TEQSA, 2022).
2. Research misconduct refers to conduct that breaches Responsible Conduct of Research Policy. Research means the creation of new knowledge and/or the use of existing knowledge in a new and creative way to generate new concepts, methodologies, processes, devices, software, hardware and understandings. This could include synthesis and analysis of previous research to the extent that it leads to new and creative outcomes, and encompasses pure and strategic research, applied research and experimental development (Responsible Conduct of Research Policy; Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research 2018). Allegations of research misconduct are referred to the Dean, Graduate Studies and Researcher Development for investigation. The Dean has the discretion to refer matters to Associate Deans Research as AOs for investigation.
3. General misconduct refers to conduct that breaches of the accepted standards of behaviour at the University, outlined in the Student Code of Conduct including conduct that:
   1. places at risk the health, safety or welfare of any person.
   2. places at risk the business or other operations, systems, or activities of the University.
   3. disrupts or interferes with another person’s ability to access or enjoy the University's facilities or services.
   4. violates University policies, specifically the: Bullying Prevention Policy; Acceptable Use of Digital Services Policy; Discrimination, Harassment, Vilification and Victimisation Prevention Policy; Respect and Inclusion in Learning and Working Policy; Privacy Policy and/or Privacy Management Plan and the Motting and Hazing Prevention Policy.
4. Sexual misconduct refers to behaviour that includes sexual assault, sexual harassment, sexual touching or sexual acts, making or distributing sexually explicit photos or videos without consent and conduct involving child abuse material, or unauthorised sharing of explicit images (Sexual Misconduct and Gender Based Violence Prevention and Response Policy).
5. Gender-based violence refers to any form of physical or nonphysical violence, harassment, abuse or threats, based on gender, that results in, or is likely to result in, harm, coercion, control, fear or deprivation of liberty or autonomy (National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence, 2025).
6. Inappropriate Behaviour is any conduct by a student, staff member, affiliate that is unreasonable, unwelcome, or inconsistent with the standards of behaviour expected within the Western Sydney University the University) community. It includes behaviour that undermines a safe, respectful, inclusive, or productive learning and working environment. Such behaviour may occur in teaching, research, administrative, residential, or social settings, including online or digital environments connected to the University. Such behaviour is not considered misconduct and will be managed at the point of origin via the Inappropriate Behaviour Guidelines. The Inappropriate Behaviour Guidelines allows students three educative actions, before the matter is reported as a misconduct allegation.

Section 3 - Scope

Rights and Responsibilities

(7) The Universityimplements misconduct procedures in a safe, fair, respectful, and trauma informed manner that prioritises safety and wellbeing. Students and staff are entitled to dignity, confidentiality, procedural fairness, reasonable adjustments, and appropriate support, and are expected to engage respectfully and in good faith, in accordance with confidentiality requirements, and to comply with interim measures, findings and sanctions.

Trauma Informed Approach

(8) The Universityapplies a trauma informed approach to the student misconduct process, grounded in the six foundations, to prioritise a student’s experience, safety, fairness, and respectful engagement:

1. Prevalence: Recognise and understand the widespread prevalence of trauma and proceed on the assumption that trauma may be present.
2. Prevention: Prevent re traumatisation by designing and maintaining safe systems, misconduct processes, and practices.
3. Reframe: Adopt a strengths-based approach by asking “What has happened to you?” rather than “What is wrong with you?”.
4. Impacts: Understand the impacts of trauma, including its effects on physiology, neurobiology, communication, memory, and behaviour.
5. Acknowledge: Acknowledge that past experiences may influence an individual’s sense of safety, trust, and engagement with misconduct processes.
6. Context: Recognise and respond to cultural, historical, and gender contexts and dynamics that may shape experiences of trauma (NSO, 2026).

Confidentiality

(9) The University recognises confidentiality as fundamental to the integrity, safety, and fairness of the student misconduct process. Information relating to a misconduct matter is handled respectfully, securely, and confidentially, and is disclosed only for legitimate procedural, legal, or safety purposes, in accordance with legislative requirements and University policy. Confidentiality supports trust in the process, protects the wellbeing and privacy of all parties, and reduces the risk of harm, retaliation, or re traumatisation; however, confidentiality may be limited where disclosure is required by law, or is necessary to manage risk.

Support for Students

(10) The University is committed to appropriately supporting students through the misconduct process. Students may access academic, wellbeing, cultural, advocacy, and disability supports, and have the right to utilise a support person who may provide emotional support and assist with understanding the process but does not act as an advocate or legal representative. Access to support helps students to understand the process, participate effectively, and manage its personal impact, while maintaining procedural fairness and the integrity of the process. Information about available supports is provided in a timely and accessible manner to promote student wellbeing, safety, and informed decision making.

Procedural Fairness

(11) Procedural fairness requires misconduct investigations to be fair, transparent, impartial, and evidence-based, ensuring consistent treatment of all students and decisions grounded in relevant evidence.

(12) Allegations are assessed through a structured process to determine whether they are substantiated and to apply proportionate outcomes in line with university policy. This is supported by clear information, reasonable adjustments where needed, defined escalation pathways, impartial decision-making, and a genuine opportunity to respond, with a focus on minimising harm.

Restorative Principles

(13) The University applies restorative principles in responding to misconduct allegations, focussing on prevention, fairness, student wellbeing, and continuous improvement through a fair, transparent, timely, confidential, and proportionate processes.

(14) A student-centred and trauma-informed approach is adopted, prioritising psychological and cultural safety, dignity, accessibility, and respectful engagement. Where appropriate, restorative approaches may be used to promote accountability, repair relationships, and support safe, informed, and meaningful participation, while also informing systemic improvement.

Section 4 - Procedure

(15) The University manages misconduct in accordance with the Student Misconduct Procedure. Priority is given to alleged sexual offences and allegations gender-based violence through a trauma-informed response that protects the immediate safety and wellbeing of the discloser. Investigations establish relevant facts on the balance of probabilities to support fair, transparent and reasonable decision-making under University policy.

(16) The Student Misconduct Procedure comprises seven stages:

1. Education
2. Review and Triage
3. Engagement and Explanation
4. Investigation
5. Finding
6. Appeal
7. Reflection and Improvement

Service Standards

(17) General standards that apply to all misconduct matters include:

1. Matters are managed without unreasonable delay and proportionate to risk and seriousness.
2. Students are kept informed of key steps, expected timeframes, and reasons for delay.
3. Procedural fairness is maintained at all stages.
4. Sexual and gender-based misconduct is prioritised and handled using a trauma-informed approach.

(18) The University aims to meet the following service standards in the management of misconduct matters in at least 90% of cases, with findings on misconduct allegation determined within 45 business days of reporting. Indicative timeframes for each stage of the procedure are as follows:

Misconduct Procedure Stages and Key actions

(19) Each stage of the misconduct procedure is outlined in detail, including key actions required at each stage.

Stage 1: Education and Reporting

(20) This stage focuses on the academic function of proactively educating students on academic integrity, general conduct, and professional behaviour, to prevent misconduct and promote responsible conduct aligned with university standards and future professional expectations. Education is delivered through formal and informal means, including orientation, workshops, training modules, policy communications, discipline-specific guidance, everyday interactions, role-modelling, and University culture. Students receive instruction in the following areas, to complement their discipline-specific learning:

1. Academic Integrity: Students are introduced to academic integrity from the commencement of their studies and through their program orientation, skills-development modules, discipline specific training, library resources, and guidance on appropriate use of AI and plagiarism detection tools. Students are directed to relevant policies and support services to meet academic expectations. Education also includes training on research protocols and responsible research practices where relevant. Students are directed to relevant policies and support services to meet academic expectation
2. General conduct: The university promotes respectful, and responsible behaviour through the Student Code of Conduct, supported by training, briefings, awareness activities and discipline specific instruction. Students are expected to comply with the Code in all situations where they represent the University, including placements, events, field trips, study tours and overseas activities. Expectations are reinforced through orientations to the university and programs, preplacement education, and discipline-specific guidance on communication, ethics and professional behaviour.
3. Behaviour on Placement: Students are prepared for professional conduct in placement settings through pre-placement education, safety briefings, and reinforcement of the Student Code of Conduct. Guidance is provided on communication, ethics, workplace etiquette, and reporting processes, with academic support and Placement Reasonable Adjustment Plans (PRAP) available to support student placements.
4. If the student continues to engage in the same or similar behaviour despite guidance, skills development and educative efforts under the IBG, allegations of misconduct must be reported centrally in the Complaints and Misconduct Reporting Portal.

Reporting Misconduct

(21) Where an academic or professional staff member needs to report an allegation of misconduct, the staff member must:

1. Notify the student that an allegation of misconduct against them is being reported for investigation
2. Gather evidence to support the allegation to be included as part of submission to the C&IO when it is reported. Evidence includes information from the academic relating to the identification of the misconduct and their assessment of the evidence, emails, messages, learning platform records, screenshots, AI or plagiarism reports, assessment submissions, written or verbal statements from students, CCTV footage of any other tangible evidence related to the allegation.
3. Report online via the Complaints and Misconduct Reporting Portal
4. When asked: What type of matter would you like to raise? Select: Allegation of Student Misconduct, from the drop-down menu.
5. Follow the prompts to report the misconduct allegation. When the allegation and supporting evidence have been entered into the portal, press submit.  Evidence must be submitted to report the allegation.

(22) The staff member will receive an automatic notification that the allegation has been reported.  

(23) The matter will reviewed and triaged by the Conduct and Investigations Office (C&IO).

Stage 2. Review and Triage

(24) This stage ensures suspected misconduct is recorded, assessed, and categorised through review and triage to support the consistent management and resolution of matters in accordance with university policy.

(25) All suspected misconduct is reported through the Complaints and Misconduct Management System (CMMS) managed by the Conduct and Investigations Office (C&IO), which holds responsibility for end-to-end case management of all misconduct matters. The C&IO reviews and triages each report. A Case Manager assesses the nature and seriousness of the allegation, and categorises the allegation in line with University’s definitions, standards and thresholds.

(26) The Case Manager will:

1. Review the reported allegation.
2. Triage the matter by:
   1. Type: academic, research, general, sexual misconduct or gender-based violence. Research matters will be referred to the Dean of Graduate Studies for investigation and resolution, and
   2. Category:
      1. Category One (C1) Minor Misconduct; or
      2. Category Two (C2) Serious Misconduct, with contract cheating, sexual offences and gender-based violence automatically categorised as C2.
3. Prepare evidence brief for the relevant decision maker: C1 matters are assigned to Authorised Officer (AO) and C2 matters are assigned to a Senior Authorised Officer (SAO).
4. Act immediately in response to all allegations of sexual and gender-based violence to ensure a trauma-informed response. All allegations of sexual offences and gender-based violence are automatically C2 misconduct. These matters must be:
   1. reported to the Director, Conduct and Investigations Office for allegations involving children or individuals under 18 years.
   2. responded to under Section 4 – How to respond to an incident in the Sexual Misconduct and Gender Based Violence Prevention and Response Policy.
   3. Sanctions for sexual misconduct breaches are as follows: First breach: 6-12 months suspension and a repeat breach: Expulsion from the University.

(27) The relevant decision maker will review the evidence brief provided by the C&IO Case Manager and decide if the matter should be:

1. Dismissed, with no further action being taken.
2. Subject to investigation under the Student Misconduct Policy and Student Misconduct Procedure.
3. Considered under any other Policy, Procedure of Guideline.

Stage 3. Engagement and Explanation.

(28) This stage aims to engage the student by explaining the misconduct procedure, their rights and options, and what is required of them, so they can participate meaningfully and fairly in the process. Specifically, this stage facilitates the student’s right to be informed of the allegation, to access relevant information and support services, and to have the matter heard and determined by an unbiased decision maker.

(29) The Case Manager will:

1. Explain the Student Misconduct Procedure clearly to the student providing a link to the Student Misconduct Policy and Procedure for the student’s information.
2. Advise the student that they have 10 business days to respond to the allegation. Refer the student to Student Support Officers who can support them in responding to the allegation.
3. Explain the student’s rights and responsibilites and advise the student how to engage in the process.
4. Clarify the roles and responsibilties of those involved in the process.
5. Refer student to Student Case Coordinators to:
   1. Identify and share relevant student support services e.g., advocacy, counselling, accessibility services, with all parties.
   2. Consider cultural, linguistic, disability, or wellbeing factors that require procedural adjustments, and implement any necessary adjustments.
   3. Advise the student of their right to a support person, including the role and responsibilities of that person.
   4. Ensure staff involved in the process have access to appropriate guidance or support resources.
   5. Issue clear written communication to all parties using approved templates, outlining required actions and the steps in the process.
6. Support the relevant officer in planning the investigation to:
   1. Assess risks to safety, wellbeing, academic progress, or procedural fairness.
   2. Determine if interim measures are needed e.g., restrictions, changes to access or assessment conditions.
   3. Identify and manage power imbalances, including supported measures such as independent decision-making, support persons, limited contact and clear communication.
   4. Apply a trauma-informed process.
   5. Maintain appropriate confidentiality throughout.
7. Prepare for the investigation by:
   1. Identifying who needs to be involved and their roles.
   2. Scheduling meetings with sufficient time for explanations, questions, and breaks.
   3. Selecting an appropriate format (in person, online, or hybrid) in a private and safe setting.
   4. Providing the evidence brief in advance.
   5. Planning clear communication steps for all parties.
   6. Managing documentation to ensure fairness while protecting privacy and limiting unnecessary disclosure.
   7. Supporting the decision-maker in applying the balance of probabilities by assessing evidence credibility.
   8. Ensuring procedural fairness by giving students an opportunity to respond to relevant information.

Restriction Orders

(30) A Restriction Order is an interim, risk management measure imposed on a student to protect health, safety, welfare of individuals, University operations, and the integrity of misconduct processes. It is a precautionary measure, not a disciplinary outcome.A student issued with an Order has the opportunity to respond to the conditions of the order by emailing the issuing officer in writing.  The student's response may be taken into account, and the conditions of the order may be varied or lifted at the discretion of the Senior Authorised Officer.

Short Term Restriction Orders

(31) Short-Term Restriction Orders are imposed to address immediate safety or behaviour concerns, act as a temporary stabilising measure, and restrict access, attendance, or contact as necessary.

(32) Short-Term Restriction Orders are:

1. Issued by Security Officers and Security Management to manage immediate or urgent risks for up to three days (inclusive of date of issue and expiry).  
2. Take effect from notification, (inclusive of date of issue and expire at 11.59pm on the date of expiry).  
3. Must be proportionate, risk-based, and minimise academic disadvantage where practicable.
4. Non-compliance with a Short-Term Restriction Order constitutes C2 misconduct.

Longer-Term Restriction Orders

(33) Longer-Term Restriction Orders are imposed where risks continue beyond the short term, during misconduct investigations, may remain in place while criminal proceedings are finalised, and will continue to restrict rights or privileges as needed.

(34) Longer-Term Restriction Orders are:

1. Issued by an SAO to restrict access, attendance, systems, or contact with individuals.
2. Used to manage ongoing or sustained risks, particularly during serious misconduct investigations for more than 30 days, at the University's discretion.
3. May be reviewed, varied, or lifted at the SAO’s discretion.
4. Take effect from decision, inclusive of date of issue and expiry at the University’s discretion.
5. Must be proportionate, risk-based, and minimise academic disadvantage where practicable.
6. Non-compliance with conditions constitutes C2 misconduct.
7. Any suspensions must be reflected in enrolment systems.

(35) A student accused of serious misconduct such as a sexual or gender-based offence, serious bullying or harassment, or a criminal offence punishable by 12 months or more imprisonment, will be subject to a restriction order for the duration of the proceedings under this Policy unless the student can reasonably satisfy the SAO that:

1. the student is unlikely to pose any risk to people, University assets or systems, the integrity of the investigations or evidence, or the likelihood that the alleged misconduct will continue or be repeated.
2. The risk can be managed without the need for a restriction order, but only on the condition that the student gives a written undertaken, and continues, to comply with any reasonable management strategies specified by the SAO.

Stage 4. Investigation

(36) This stage involves investigating an allegation to determine whether an allegation is substantiated, in part or in full, or dismissed and reach a decision following a review of the evidence brief.

(37) While the investigation process is the same for all misconduct matters, the decision-maker and timing differ:

1. C1 (minor misconduct): An AO reviews the evidence and decides within 10 business days of receiving the evidence brief.
2. C2 (serious misconduct): A SAO reviews the evidence and decides within 15 business days of receiving the evidence brief.

(38) The relevant officer:

1. Has the discretion to meet with the student during the investigation.
2. Is required to advise the Director, Conduct & Investigations Office, of all allegations of sexual misconduct or gender-based violence matters.
3. Is required to declare any conflict of interest, in which case the matter will be reassigned to a different authorised officer.

(39) The investigation process is as follows:

1. Evidence brief prepared. The Case Manager prepares the evidence brief for review by the relevant officer. The brief is objective, factual, and complete and includes all relevant information. It is clearly organised to support effective and efficient decision making.

(40) An evidence brief will typically include:

1. Allegation summary: A clear, concise description of the alleged misconduct, including dates, locations, and the specific rule or policy breached.
2. Applicable policies or standards: References to the relevant university policies, codes, or procedures.
3. Evidence collected. All supporting material, such as: Written statements (respondent, witnesses, staff), emails, messages, or correspondence, academic work (e.g., assignments in plagiarism cases), system records (e.g., logs, attendance, access data) and photos, videos, or other digital evidence, if applicable.
4. Student response: Any written submission where the student admits or denies the allegation, as well as meeting notes or interview records provided by the student.
5. Investigation summary: A neutral overview of the steps taken to gather evidence and any key facts established.
6. Recommendation: The Case Manager makes a recommendation to the decision maker to assist their determination by outlining a proportionate sanction(s) based on evidence, in accordance with university policy without replacing the decision makers independent judgement. This provides a structured view of the findings, relevant considerations, such as severity, intent and impact, and a suggested sanction to support a consistent, fair and well-informed decision.
7. Attachments/index of documents: A clearly organised list of all included materials.

(41) Evidence brief reviewed. The relevant officer reviews and considers the evidence in relation to the allegation. The officer also considers factors such as the student’s stage of learning, enrolment status, any prior misconduct findings, relevant adjustment plans - Practical Reasonable Adjustment Plans (PRAP) or Academic Reasonable Adjustment Plan (ARAP), and the nature of the assessment, secure or non-secure.

(42) Document the investigation. The relevant officer documents the investigation by providing information to the Case Manager for preparation of the Investigation Report. This report is clear, objective, and structured, and provides a defensible record of the investigation. It outlines the background and scope, summarises evidence and analysis and includes findings with a clear rationale for each allegation.

Stage 5: Finding

(43) This stage has three parts: firstly, reaching a finding, secondly, determining a sanction proportionate to the misconduct and thirdly, notifying relevant parties in a timely manner, including the reasons for the decision and any required next steps.

(44) Reaching a finding

1. The relevant officer assess each allegation on the balance of probabilities, makes a finding and provides reasons for the decision.
2. The relevant officer assesses each allegation on the balance of probabilities, makes a finding, and provides reasons for the decision.
3. Possible findings for each allegation are as follows:
   1. Substantiated, where the evidence shows there is a greater than 50% chance the allegation is true.
   2. Not Substantiated, where the evidence shows there is less than a 50% chance the allegation is untrue.
   3. Partially substantiated, where the evidence supports part of the allegation, but is insufficient to fully substantiate it.
   4. Referral. For allegations that are criminal in nature, the officer refers the matter to the appropriate external authority.
4. For serious misconduct matters where a finding results in sanctions including expulsion from the university or revocation of an award, the SAO may convene a panel of two SAOs to meet with the student and reach a finding.

(45) Determining a sanction.

1. Sanctions are corrective actions of disciplinary measures imposed by the University following a finding of misconduct.
2. Sanctions will be applied after the 20-business day appeal period has passed, provided the student has not submitted an appeal.
3. The relevant officers as a decision maker can:
   1. Impose more severe sanctions if warranted.
   2. Manage a single matter that involves multiple allegations, as one matter under this procedure.
   3. Impose a suspended sanction, with or without conditions, after obtaining advice from the Director of Conduct and Investigations Office or the General Counsel. Conditions for imposing a suspended sanction include but are not limited to: Agreeing to certain behaviours (e.g., no contact with specific individuals), completing counselling, training, or remedial actions, providing an apology (verbal or written), and regular check-ins with an advisor or designated person. If the student fails to meet these conditions, the full sanction will take effect immediately upon notice. Non-compliance with imposed sanctions constitutes C2 misconduct and will be resolved with or without the student’s involvement.
4. Refer to Part A Misconduct Breaches and Possible Sanctions to inform their decision.
5. The University may impose suspended sanctions which are not immediately enforced but take effect if the specified conditions are breached or further misconduct occurs. In serious cases, the University may impose exclusion, either for a defined period or permanently.

Minimum sanctions

(46) C1 Misconduct – Minimum sanctions for C1 misconduct, include, but are not limited to:

1. Apology: Written undertaking not to repeat the behaviour.
2. Adjustment of marks or grades: Including reducing to zero, assigning a Fail grade for an assessment, subject, or practicum / placement.
   1. Where a sanction imposed is limited to a change to a student’s mark for an assessment and not the entire Subject, the student may be entitled to make applications under the following policies (subject to meeting relevant criteria):
      1. the University's Assessment Procedures - Review of Grade;
      2. the University's Assessment Policy in respect of supplementary assessments; and
      3. the University's Student Administration Policy in respect to withdrawal without academic penalty and is limited to the remission of debt only.
3. Where a sanction of fail for a subject is imposed, the student is not entitled to apply for a Review of Grade, supplementary assessment or withdraw without academic penalty.
4. No contact: Direction with staff or students (without unreasonably affecting study) for up to 6 months or one teaching term.
5. Financial Penalty: Payment up to $500 for repair or replacement of damaged or lost property.
6. Reprimand: Formal warning.
7. Restricted or conditional access: To campus facilities or services for up to six months or one teaching term.
8. Restricted enrolment: Restricting a student’s ability to enrol in a subject or program.
9. Suspension: A sanction following a sustained finding of misconduct and can be for up to 1 year or two teaching terms.
10. Training: Completion of a short course or training related to the misconduct.
11. Temporary exclusion (subject only): up to 6 months or one teaching term) from: A specified subject, or research activity for a Year-long subjects for the duration of that subject. A sanction to temporarily exclude a student from a subject means:
    1. the Student’s current registration in that Subject will be terminated immediately and any fees paid for that enrolment period may be forfeited subject to the Student Administration Policy - Student Fees Procedure;
    2. the Student is not permitted to seek a supplementary assessment or apply for a review of grade for the Subject affected by the misconduct;
    3. the Student will not be permitted to register in the Subject(s) for the exclusion period;
    4. the exclusion will be recorded on the Respondent Student’s University record permanently;
    5. the Respondent Student will not be permitted to apply for, and will be ineligible to receive credit for prior learning for any studies undertaken during the exclusion period in lieu of the affected Subject(s).

(47) C2 Misconduct – Minimum sanctions for C2 misconduct, include, but are not limited to:

1. Blocking: Imposing a block on issuing transcripts or releasing results.
2. Deferral or non-conferral: Of an award if eligible for graduation.
3. Financial Penalty: Payment for repair or replacement of damaged or lost property.
4. Temporary exclusion can be up to 2 years or 4 teaching terms from all programs of study and related activities.
5. Permanent exclusion from a specified program.
6. Expulsion from the university.

(48) Temporary exclusion can be up to 2 years or 4 teaching terms from all programs of study and related activities.
A sanction to exclude a student, either permanently or for a specified period of time, from all programs of study at the University means:

1. the Student’s current Program enrolment will be terminated immediately and any fees paid for that enrolment period may be forfeited subject to the Student Administration Policy - Student Fees Procedure;
2. the Student will not be permitted to apply for alternative programs of study during the exclusion period;
3. the student will not be permitted to enrol in or graduate from their Program, either for the period of exclusion or at all (as the case may be);
4. the Student is not permitted to seek a supplementary assessment or apply for a review of grade for the Subject affected by the misconduct;
5. the Student is not permitted to come onto any University lands or use any of its facilities subject to any conditions placed on the exclusion by the Senior Authorised Officer that may allow access to specific services or facilities during the exclusion period;
6. the exclusion will be recorded on the Student’s University record;
7. if an exclusion is for a specified period of time, the Student will be required to re-apply for admission to their award Program and comply with any conditions applicable for re-admission at the end of the exclusion period (including any conditions imposed as part of the sanction);
8. the Student will not be permitted to apply for, and will be ineligible to receive credit for prior learning for any studies undertaken during the exclusion period.
    

(49) First and repeat breaches for C2 misconduct are as follows:

Notifications

(50) Notifications involve formally communicating the outcome of the misconduct process to relevant parties, including the decision, reasons, any sanctions, and available appeal options.

1. The relevant officer directs the Case Manager to provide the student, in writing, with:
   1. The decision if the allegation has been substantiated or dismissed.
   2. Reasons for the decision.
   3. Sanctions to be applied and their effective date.
   4. Response timeframes and the format for responding.
   5. Criteria for appeal and relevant deadlines.
   6. Information including links to support services, clear pathways for questions or concerns and notice that failure to comply with sanctions constitutes C2 misconduct and may result in further action.
   7. The misconduct finding is recorded on the student’s university record.
2. The Case Manager provides the school in writing with:
   1. A copy of the information provided to the student, above.
   2. Any requests for appeal submitted by the student.
   3. The outcome of any appeal request.
   4. Advice to finalise the students results and the deadline for finalisation.
   5. Any information on external appeals that may be lodged.
3. In finalising the matter, the Case Manager will:
   1. Close the matter in the CMMS.
   2. Create a TRIM file to store all documentation relating to the matter in accordance with university records management protocols.

Stage 6: Appeal

(51) The appeal stage provides an independent review of the application of the Student Misconduct Procedure to ensure it was procedurally fair. Students have 20 business days of receipt of the misconduct finding to lodge a request for appeal.

1. A student may lodge a request for appeal to assess the procedural fairness in the finding for a C1 or C2 matter.
2. A request for appeal:
   1. Can only be made on the grounds of an allegation of a breach of procedural fairness in the application of the misconduct procedure.
   2. Must include evidence to support the allegation that the process was procedurally unfair. A student’s failure to provide evidence to support the request for appeal may result in the request being dismissed.
3. Decision makers for appeals are outlined in Part B Authorised Officers.
4. There are no grounds to appeal the determination of an appeal or submit an internal complaint about the determination of an appeal.

Stage 7. Reflection and Improvement

(52) This stage reflects on how the misconduct process supports students to feel heard, understand the impact of their behaviour, rebuild trust, and move forward constructively. It supports continuous improvement of the University’s culture, practices, and processes.

(53) The Director, Conduct and Investigations will:

1. Lead a process annually that reflects on:
   1. The safety and supportiveness of the process: including the use of clear, compassionate communication; offering choice and flexibility to reduced stress and re-traumatisation.
   2. The wellbeing and cultural supports provided to students and if additional supports can be introduced.
   3. The integrity and effectiveness of the process in line with trauma-informed and restorative approaches assessing whether opportunities for accountability, learning, and repair were appropriately considered or offered.
   4. Patterns of behaviour exhibited through misconduct matters reported.
   5. The application of the trauma-informed approach to identify areas of improvement.
   6. The student and staff experience via feedback and insights to further improve the process.
2. Report to key stakeholders on the misconduct process at regular intervals:
   1. Quarterly reporting on the numbers of matters by type and category, thematic trends, consistency, and systemic issues.
   2. Annually reporting to inform process amendments guided by student and staff feedback, staff training needs, prevention strategies and institutional learning.

Section 5 - Guidelines

(54) Nil.

Section 6 - Terms and Definitions

Part A - Misconduct Breaches and Possible Sanctions

Academic Misconduct

Category One academic misconduct matters include but are not limited to:

Category Two academic misconduct matters include but are not limited to:

Research Misconduct

Category one research misconduct matters include but are not limited to:

Category two research misconduct matters include but are not limited to:

General Misconduct

Category 1 general misconduct matters include but are not limited to:

Category two General Misconduct matters include but are not limited to: