1.1 | That there existed circumstances affecting the candidate's performance of which the examiners (or the assessors in the case of an upgrade) had not been made aware of when their decision was taken. |
1.2 | That there were procedural irregularities in the conduct of the examination or the upgrading meeting (including administrative error) of such a nature as to cause reasonable doubt whether the result might have been different had they not occurred. |
1.3 | That there was evidence of prejudice or of bias or of inadequate assessment on the part of one or more of the examiners (or the assessors in the case of an upgrade). |
1.4 | That the supervision of the candidate was unsatisfactory to the point that his/her performance was seriously affected. |
1.5 | That, in reaching their decision, the examiners (or the assessors in the case of an upgrade) had erroneously concluded that the candidate had cheated or plagiarised or attempted to gain an unfair advantage in the thesis or in any element of work submitted for the degree. |
11.1 | of the date, time and place of the meeting; |
11.2 | of the names of those constituting the Committee; |
11.3 | that the appellant is entitled either to attend in person, alone or accompanied by his/her supervisor(s), by any other member of the University willing to assist in this way, or by a legally qualified person, or to be reprsentated in his/her absence by such a person; and that it is in the appellant's own interests to be so accompanied or represented; |
11.4 | that the Committee reserves the right to take legal advice on its own behalf and, if the appellant elects to be accompanied or represented by a legally qualified person, it may also invite its legal adviser to be present at the hearing. |
19.1 | The Committee may dismiss the appeal. |
19.2 | When the appeal is on either of the grounds stated in 1.1 and 1.2 above, the Committee may either: 19.2.1 request the original Board of Examiners, via the School Board concerned, to amend its recommendation; or 19.2.2 give the candidate permission to revise the thesis and re-submit it for re-examination within a specified time; or 19.2.3 declare the examination null and void and direct that a fresh examination be conducted. |
19.3 | Where the appeal is on the grounds stated in 1.3 or 1.5 above, the Committee may direct that the thesis be re-examined. |
19.4 | Where the appeal is on the grounds stated in 1.4 above, the Committee may give the candidate permission to revise the thesis and re-submit for re-examination with a specified time. In this case, the Committee will state whether or not a further period of full-time or part-time supervised study is required, and will instruct the School or Faculty to ensure that satisfactory supervisory arrangements are made for the period until re-submission. |
19.5 | Where the appeal is against a decision not to upgrade from MPhil to PhD status, the Committee may either: 19.5.1 request the School to amend its decision and to permit the student to upgrade to PhD status; or 19.5.2 request that the School inform the student what additional work is necessary for an upgrade to PhD status, and by what date this material should be submitted to the original assessment panel; or 19.5.3 request that the School re-assesses the student with six weeks of the meeting of the Appeals Committee, and that the Head of School, or his/her nominee, and one other member of academic staff in the School or an external examiner be added to the original assessment panel. (In these circumstances, it is recommended that the Head of School should discuss the composition of the new panel with the Dean of the Faculty. |
20.1 | The School Board shall appoint new examiners, no fewer in number than on the original Board and including at least two external examiners. |
20.2 | The external examiners shall be given no information about the previous examination other than that they are conducting a re-examination on appeal and are required to hold an oral examination. |
20.3 | The examiners shall report on the thesis independently before they examine the candidate orally, and shall make a joint report after the oral examination. |
20.4 | The reports of the members of the original Board of Examiners and of the new Board shall be sent to the School Board; where the recommendations of the two Boards do not agree, any agreed recommendation of the new Board will normally be expected to prevail. |
20.5 | The Committee will normally make a recommendation to the School about whether or not the candidate shall be liable for any fees in respect of any further period of registration required before re-examination. |