Approved on	4 March 2009	by	Academic Council	Res. No.	AC/30/2009
Last Amended		by		Res. No.
Next Review Date	March 2012
Keywords	Student Appeals
Trade Practices Act	Users of this policy need to be aware of the Trade Practices Act which can be found at https://www.legal.murdoch.edu.au/common/tradepractices.html

STUDENT APPEALS

1.0	POLICY STATEMENT Murdoch University takes a genuine interest in students. Its mission is to extend knowledge, stimulate learning, and promote understanding for the benefit of the wider community. As such, it is committed to providing a fair and just learning environment by ensuring access to appeal processes that provide for the following: natural justice and procedural fairness; transparency and accountability; the provision of regular procedural review; and the enhancement of the appeals process and outcomes.
2.0	KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS (for the purposes of this policy)

	2.1	“Membership” means membership of the Student Appeals Committee or Student Appeals Hearing Panel (as the case may be).

	2.2	“SAC” or “Student Appeals Committee” means the Student Appeals Committee constituted in accordance with this policy.

	2.3	“SAHP” or “Student Appeals Hearing Panel” or “Panel” means a panel of Student Appeals Committee members as described in the section below headed Student Appeals Hearing Panels.

	2.4	Accepted – the appeal will be considered by the SAHP.

	2.5	Rejected – the appeal will not be considered by the SAHP.

	2.6	Upheld – an appeal heard by the SAHP is supported.

	2.7	Denied – an appeal heard by the SAHP is not supported.

	2.8	Exclusion – a student’s enrolment is discontinued temporarily because of failure to meet academic progress rules.

	2.9	Expulsion – penalty applied as a result of misconduct.

	2.10	Malicious – harmful, vicious or mischievous in its intent or purpose. For example: making false claims and/or derogatory or vindictive comments against someone for the purpose of harming them; engaging in abusive or threatening behaviour.

	2.11	Vexatious – causing unnecessary trouble or harassment.

	2.12	University Working Day means a day that the University is open for business. Where there are variations between University campus working days, these will be accommodated.

3.0	SCOPE OF THE STUDENT APPEALS POLICY This policy shall apply to all appeals as listed under section 9.0 Types of Appeal.

	3.1	The following complaints/grievances are not dealt with by the Student Appeals Committee and are therefore outside the scope of this policy:
		General Grievances; poor teaching and/or supervision; and a request for a re-mark or review of an examination and/or assessment.
	3.2	General complaints regarding quality of teaching/supervision should be directed to the Program Chair or School Dean. Details on this procedure can be found at the following webpage: http://www.oss.murdoch.edu.au/grievances/teach.html. The following webpage explains how general complaints or grievances can be addressed: http://www.oss.murdoch.edu.au/grievances/index.html.

4.0	PRINCIPLES/OBJECTIVES

	4.1	The Student Appeals Committee (SAC) encourages students to resolve issues initially through their Unit Coordinator and/or appropriate Faculty staff member. In cases where this is not possible, the appeals process provides a further opportunity for students to seek a final resolution.

	4.2	The submission of an appeal will not incur a fee.

	4.3	In instances of Vexatious or Malicious appeals, provision will be made to protect the University and its staff.

	4.4	Written reasons for any decision made by either the SAC Chair or Student Appeals Hearing Panel concerning an appeal will be provided to the student and to relevant staff.

	4.5	Where the SAHP upholds an appeal on grounds which it believes are applicable to some or all other students in that unit in that teaching period, it may recommend to the Faculty Dean that the grades of those students should be reviewed.

	4.6	The SAHP will also advise the Faculty Dean and School Dean of any issues concerning assessment and teaching practices arising from appeals concerning their Faculty/School.

	4.7	The decision of the SAC or SAC Officer as described in and authorized by this Policy will be final.

5.0	VEXATIOUS AND MALICIOUS APPEALS

	5.1	In accordance with Student Responsibilities as set out in the Assessment Policy: Students must not undertake spurious appeals, make ambit claims over assessment grades, or resubmit rejected appeals.

	5.2	In instances where an appeal or complaint is deemed by the SAC Officer to be vexatious or malicious the matter may be referred to the Deputy Vice Chancellor - Academic or nominee as a complaint of misconduct.

6.0	STUDENT ASSISTANCE AND USEFUL LINKS

	6.1	A student may seek assistance in preparing their appeals from the following sources:
		the University Health and Counselling service; the Guild Education and Welfare Officer; and Equity, Access & Diversity.
7.0	MEMBERSHIP OF SAC AND SAHP

	7.1	STUDENT APPEALS COMMITTEE (SAC) Membership will consist of:
		a Chair and an alternate for the Chair each appointed by Academic Council for a term of three years who shall be of the rank of Associate Professor or Professor, except where otherwise approved by Academic Council; Membership of SAC shall consist of two academic staff from each Faculty. The 12 Committee members are to be appointed by Academic Council for a term of three years; the President of the Guild of Students or a student nominated by her or him; and a Student Appeals Committee Officer (non-voting).
		Faculty and School Deans are ineligible for appointment to the Committee.

	7.2	STUDENT APPEALS HEARING PANELS (SAHP) Membership will consist of the following members of the Student Appeals Committee:
		the SAC Chair, or Alternate Chair. two additional members of the SAC; of the three academic staff representatives of SAC, one must be female, one male and all must be chosen from Schools other than those from which the appeal has arisen; the President of the Guild of Students or a student nominated by her or him; and a Student Appeals Committee Officer (non voting).
		All members of the SAHP must be present for the hearing to proceed.

		The student member of the committee does not have the role of an advocate for the student. The Guild may nominate an alternate Guild office member who will provide support services to the student where necessary.

8.0	POSSIBLE BIAS

	8.1	Members of a Student Appeals Hearing Panel must not participate in hearing an appeal in which there is actual bias or a reasonable apprehension of bias.

	8.2	A member who has a family or other personal relationship with the student, or is a staff member in the same school as a unit under appeal, must withdraw from the hearing.

9.0	TYPES OF APPEAL The following is a list of the appeals that will be considered by the SAC.

	Appeals against:
	The final result awarded in a unit (including Honours and Postgraduate Coursework). The result of examination of a Doctoral, Masters or Honours Thesis and resolution of final result. Inadequate provision of alternate arrangements for a student with a conscientious belief which is in conflict with a teaching or assessment practice. Denial of deferred assessment. Denial of a Retrospective withdrawal from a unit. Exclusion from the University or from a course (if the student has applied unsuccessfully to the Program Chair for continued enrolment). Denial of admission and/or enrolment to the University or to a course (following unsuccessful review by the Admissions Officer). Denial of credit/exemption or advanced standing towards a University qualification. The non-award of a scholarship. Any finding of, or penalty for misconduct, made in accordance with University legislation.
10.0	VALID AND INVALID GROUNDS FOR APPEALS

	10.1	THE FINAL RESULT AWARDED IN A UNIT (INCLUDING HONOURS AND POSTGRADUATE COURSEWORK):

		VALID GROUNDS:
		the student can provide evidence of disadvantage in one or more of the following ways: a piece of work handed in on time was not marked; feedback on assessed work was not obtained within a reasonable time; or alleged wrong advice from staff teaching the unit (e.g., about the content of the examination or approval of an extension for an assignment). the student's grade was not based on the assessment methods specified in a study guide or unit handout at the start of the unit. the assessment methods used were in breach of the University's Assessment Policy, and resulted in disadvantage. demonstrated bias by the tutor, Unit Co-ordinator against the student that affected the grade or mark awarded to the student (this allegation must be supported by specific examples that can be confirmed). in exceptional circumstances, other grounds (except those in the list of invalid grounds) will be considered if the Chair or Alternate Chair of the Student Appeals Committee accepts these as reasonable.
		INVALID GROUNDS:
		the objectives of the unit; disagreement with the assessment methods approved for the unit; disagreement with the standard required to receive particular grades in the unit; a study overload has prevented the student from earning a higher grade; personal and medical problems, which normally are dealt with by deferred assessment or a retrospective withdrawal; financial implications of not passing the unit; the student received a higher grade in other units; the amount of time, work or effort the student has expended; a penalty imposed for plagiarism in accordance with University guidelines; general grievances; poor teaching and supervision; the need for additional marks to secure a pass grade; a delay in receiving written notification of supplementary assessment; the award of an interim grade (supplementary assessment); the non-award of supplementary assessment (in situations where the Assessment Policy indicates the decision is at the discretion of the Unit Coordinator); requesting a review or re-mark; and an administrative error or miscalculation.
	10.2	THE RESULT OF EXAMINATION OF A DOCTORAL, MASTERS, OR HONOURS THESIS AND RESOLUTION OF FINAL RESULT

		VALID GROUNDS:
		failure or neglect by the University to follow procedures for thesis examination or determination of final result or overall class of Honours (must be supported by specific examples); demonstrated prejudice or bias on the part of one or more of the examiners; one or more of the examiners lacked the qualifications or experience necessary for proper examination of the thesis as stipulated in the relevant Regulation or policy; or demonstrated prejudice or bias on the part of one or more members of the relevant sub-committee responsible for determining the final result for a thesis or overall class of Honours (this allegation must be supported by specific examples that can be confirmed).
		INVALID GROUNDS:
		the amount of time, work or effort the student has expended; financial implications; poor supervision; a study overload; work and family commitments; or an administrative error or miscalculation.
	10.3	INADEQUATE PROVISION OF ALTERNATE ARRANGEMENTS FOR A STUDENT WITH A CONSCIENTIOUS BELIEF WHICH IS IN CONFLICT WITH A TEACHING OR ASSESSMENT PRACTICE

		VALID GROUNDS:
		the University did not make reasonable alternate arrangements for the student.
		INVALID GROUNDS:
		the student did not identify their conscientious objection prior to undertaking the practice or submitting an appeal.
	10.4	DENIAL OF DEFERRED ASSESSMENT

		VALID GROUNDS:

		Provided the student is still able to pass the unit:
		the student can supply supporting evidence of medical and/or exceptional personal circumstances that prevented them from completing assessment work by the end of the teaching period or sitting the examination; the ruling made by the Examinations Office was in breach of the Assessment Policy (must be supported by specific examples); or the student can demonstrate that incorrect information was supplied by the Unit Coordinator.
		INVALID GROUNDS:
		illness or extenuating circumstances occurred in the first three weeks of the semester (pro rata for other teaching periods); or financial implications.
	10.5	DENIAL OF A RETROSPECTIVE WITHDRAWAL FROM A UNIT

		VALID GROUNDS:
		the decision to deny a Retrospective Withdrawal was in breach of the University’s guidelines (must be supported by specific examples); or
		INVALID GROUNDS:
		financial implications; or lack of knowledge or understanding of the University’s or HESA’s (Higher Education Support Act) standards and/or procedures.
	10.6	EXCLUSION FROM THE UNIVERSITY OR FROM A COURSE (IF THE STUDENT HAS APPLIED UNSUCESSFULLY TO THE PROGRAM CHAIR FOR CONTINUED ENROLMENT)

		VALID GROUNDS:
		a breach of due process (must be supported by specific examples).
		INVALID GROUNDS:
		problems commonly encountered in everyday life (such as moving house; financial implications; pregnancy; parental responsibilities); contrition; family and personal implications; and visa implications.
	10.7	DENIAL OF ADMISSION AND/OR ENROLMENT TO THE UNIVERSITY OR TO A COURSE (FOLLOWING UNSUCESSFUL REVIEW BY THE ADMISSIONS OFFICER)

		VALID GROUNDS:
		the selection methods used were in breach of the University’s admission processes (must be supported by specific examples).
		INVALID GROUNDS:
		financial implications; visa implications; or family and personal implications.
	10.8	DENIAL OF CREDIT/EXEMPTION OR ADVANCED STANDING TOWARDS A UNIVERSITY QUALIFICATION

		VALID GROUNDS:
		the assessment and application methods used were in breach of the Rules on Credit and Exemption (must be supported by specific examples).
		INVALID GROUNDS:
		financial implications.
	10.9	THE NON-AWARD OF A SCHOLARSHIP

		VALID GROUNDS:
		the assessment and application methods breached due process; or demonstrated evidence that the selection criteria were not applied correctly.
		INVALID GROUNDS:
		a student has met the general criteria but is not awarded a scholarship due to ranking/points; or the student has further information that was not presented in the application.
	10.10	ANY FINDING OF, OR PENALTY FOR MISCONDUCT MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIVERSITY LEGISLATION

		VALID GROUNDS:
		There was a lack of procedural fairness at any hearing, which led to the student not receiving a fair hearing; The decision made was manifestly wrong; The penalty imposed was unavailable, inappropriate or manifestly excessive; or Evidence becomes available that, in the opinion of the Chair of the Student Appeals Committee was not reasonably ascertainable by the student prior to any hearing or written submissions and would probably have affected the decision or penalty.
11.0	TIMEFRAMES

	11.1	The submission of appeals shall be in accordance with the following table:

		TYPE OF APPEAL	DEADLINE TO SUBMIT		PROCESS TIME
		Denial of Admission/Enrolment	10	University Working Days from notification email	8 - 12 weeks
		Inadequate provision of alternate arrangements	10	University Working Days from notification email	8 – 12 weeks
		Denial of Credit/Exemption/Advanced Standing	10	University Working Days from notification email	8 –12 weeks
		Denial of Deferred Assessment	5	University Working Days from notification email	1 – 2 weeks (prior to examination)
		Any finding or penalty of misconduct	20	University Working Days from notification email of misconduct	8 – 12 weeks
		Exclusion (If the student has applied unsuccessfully to the Program Chair for continued enrolment)	10	University Working Days from notification email	2 – 3 weeks
		Result of an examination of Doctoral or Masters thesis	10	University Working Days from notification email	8 – 12 weeks
		Denial of a Retrospective Withdrawal	28	Calendar Days from notification email	8 – 12 weeks
		Non award of a scholarship	10	University Working Days from notification email	8 – 12 weeks
		Unit Results	10	University Working Days from notification email of release of final grade	8 – 12 weeks
12.0	SUBMISSION OF APPEALS

	12.1	All appeals submitted must:
		be in accordance with this Policy; include a typed A4 letter of appeal; state the ground(s) for appeal and outline how facts support these grounds; be concise and written in plain English; provide any relevant correspondence with University staff; and provide other supporting documentation as necessary.
		The appeal should generally be no more than two or three pages of single-spaced 12-point font. If more is needed in complex cases then up to ten pages will be accepted.

	12.2	In addition to the requirements set out above, appeals against a unit grade must also include:
		include a completed and typed appeals cover sheet; provide a breakdown of assessment marks; and a copy of the assessment requirements within the relevant Unit Information and Learning Guide
	12.3	In instances where an appeal submitted by a student does not meet all of the requirements set out above, the appeal may not be considered but the student will be allowed to resubmit an appeal within 5 University working days of notification of rejection. Any further applications will not be accepted.

	12.4	All appeals submitted shall be acknowledged electronically by the SAC Officer within 3 University working days of receipt.

	12.5	The submission of an appeal may be electronic (email), posted, faxed, or hand delivered.

13.0	COMMUNICATION

	13.1	All correspondence by the SAC Officer shall be conducted by electronic means, unless otherwise requested.

	13.2	In the event a student does not have or provide electronic access they must accept any associated delays in the processing of their appeal.

14.0	CONSIDERATION OF APPEALS SUBMITTED AFTER THE DEADLINE

	14.1	The Chair of the SAC may accept an appeal submitted after the deadline, if the appellant can demonstrate exceptional or extenuating circumstances that prevented the appeal being submitted by the deadline.

	14.2	The decision of the Chair or Alternate Chair shall be final.

	14.3	Exceptional and extenuating circumstances shall be determined by the Chair of the SAC. However they do not include:
		the student did not know the date of the release of the final result; the student did not know the timeframe to submit an appeal; correspondence was sent to an old address; or the student was on holiday.
15.0	STUDENT RESPONSIBILITES

	15.1	The onus is on the student to provide all appeal documentation.

	15.2	All appellants must comply with the Student Code of Conduct and Code of Ethics. Failure to do so may result in the matter being forwarded to the DVC (Academic) or nominee as a discipline matter.

	15.3	It is the student’s responsibility to find out the dates for release of formal results.

	15.4	It is the student’s responsibility to ensure all of their contact details are up to date with the University.

	15.5	Prior to submitting an appeal against a unit grade, students should contact and consult their Unit Coordinator to obtain feedback and to allow for checking of calculations.

	15.6	In instances where a student is citing perceived bias against the tutor or Unit Coordinator, the student should liaise with the Program Chair or School Dean.

16.0	ACCEPTANCE OF APPEALS FOR HEARING

	16.1	The SAC Officer shall determine whether an appeal should be accepted and be heard in accordance with the established grounds for appeal criteria (as listed in this policy).

	16.2	Where an appeal is assessed as having invalid grounds, the student shall be provided one opportunity to resubmit their appeal within 5 University working days to the Chair or alternate Chair as appropriate. If it is assessed as invalid upon resubmission, the appeal will be rejected and there will be no further avenue for appeal. The SAC Officer shall notify the student in writing of the outcome. If the student does not exercise this opportunity to resubmit within the stipulated deadline, the appeal will be rejected and the student’s file closed.

	16.3	Where a student has submitted an appeal that is assessed as valid, the appeal will be accepted and the SAC Officer shall:
		notify the student in writing of this decision to accept; outline the grounds under which their appeal will be considered; advise of the expected appeal processing timeframe; and forward the documents relating to their appeal to the relevant staff for comment.
	16.4	The SAC Officer may request additional information from the appellant to facilitate the assessment process. In these instances, the appellant shall have 3 University working days to submit this information. Failure to do so may result in the rejection of the appeal and closure of the appellant’s file.

17.0	HEARING PROCEDURES

	17.1	APPEAL AGAINST A UNIT RESULT, THESIS EXAMINATION OR OVERALL CLASS OF HONOURS

		The SAHP will seek written comments from the Unit Coordinator and from the Program Chair responsible for the unit. In the event the Unit Coordinator and Program Chair are one and the same, written comments will be sought from the Faculty Dean or School Dean. In the case of an Honours appeal, written comments will be sought from the supervisor(s) and Honours Chair. The student will be provided with copies of any comments, and permitted 3 University working days to provide any response to those comments (but shall not be permitted to introduce any new material at this point).

		The SAHP may:
		deny the appeal and confirm the grade; or uphold the appeal in whole or in part where it may direct that the student's final grade be based on additional assessment.
		In the case of an appeal against an Honours grade, the SAHP may reaffirm the class awarded; or appoint an additional thesis examiner. If an additional examiner is appointed, the Honours Sub Committee, after considering the examiner’s report shall recommend the class awarded.

	17.2	CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION In instances where the SAHP determines the Faculty should make alternative arrangements but the Faculty is not prepared to implement the SAHP’s decision, the matter will be forwarded to the Vice Chancellor for resolution.

	17.3	DENIAL OF DEFERRED ASSESSMENT The Chair shall have the authority to rule on all appeals against deferred assessment. The decision made by the Chair of the SAC shall be noted at the following SAC meeting.

	17.4	EXCLUSION

		Students may only submit an appeal to the SAC against exclusion after they have followed the appeals procedure through their Faculty Office and the Program Chair has denied their appeal.

		Where a student has submitted an appeal against exclusion, in accordance with the Academic Progress Rules of Bachelor and Diploma Courses (13d) a student’s enrolment shall be allowed to continue until a decision has been made by the SAHP.

		In instances where the Program Chair and the School Dean, after reconsideration, has agreed to lift the student’s exclusion, the SAHP shall automatically uphold the appeal and support any stipulated conditions of enrolment.

	17.5	MISCONDUCT

		The SAHP will seek written comments from all relevant staff and others involved. The student will be provided with copies of any comments, and permitted 3 University working days to provide any response to those comments (but shall not be permitted to introduce any new material at this point).

		Unless the student agrees to shorter notice, he or she must be given at least 5 University working days notice of the time of the SAHP hearing of the appeal. The notice must:
		specify the time and place of the hearing; advise the student that the SAHP may proceed in the student’s absence if he or she does not appear; and contain a copy or a website link to SAHP’s procedures.
		If the student fails to appear despite having received notice, the SAHP may proceed with the hearing in the student's absence or the Chair may order an adjournment.

		The student may nominate a support person to attend the SAHP hearing with them, who:
		must not be associated or allegedly associated with the alleged misconduct; must not be a qualified legal practitioner; and with the permission of the Chair of the SAHP, has the right to be heard and may speak on behalf the student.
		When the Chair and the members of the SAHP wish to confer privately among themselves or to consider their decision the student and support person will be required to leave. The student may also be excluded from the SAHP proceedings if he or she disrupts or unreasonably impairs the conduct of the SAHP.

		In determining an appeal in relation to misconduct, the SAHP:
		is not bound by the rules of evidence, may inform itself in relation to any matter it thinks relevant and may follow any procedure it considers appropriate; must act fairly, having regard to the requirements of natural justice; must give the student a reasonable opportunity to present his/her case and inspect and respond to any other evidence relating to the appeal (including by allowing the student to present evidence); and must consider any material presented by the student.
		A student has the right to remain silent at any hearing, and no negative inference must be drawn as a result of the student exercising this right.

		If the SAHP dismisses an appeal, or any part of an appeal, it must confirm or set aside the penalty, or vary or substitute the penalty with one that is, in the reasonable opinion of the SAHP, no more onerous than that originally imposed.

	17.6	For all other appeals:
		denial of credit/exemption or advanced standing towards a University qualification; non-award of a scholarship; denial of admission and/or enrolment to the University or to a course (following unsuccessful review by the Admissions Officer); and denial of a Retrospective withdrawal from a unit
		The SAC Officer will seek:
		information detailing the student’s original application; and obtain written comments and administrative information from relevant University staff.
		The SAHP may:
		deny the appeal; or uphold the appeal in whole or in part.
		In so doing, it may recommend for further investigation and/or action by the appropriate staff.

18.0	GENERAL PROCEDURES

	18.1	In exceptional circumstances, (for appeals other than those related to misconduct) the Chair of the SAHP may invite a student to attend the Student Appeal Hearing.

	18.2	The SAHP may refuse to continue hearing an appeal if the appeal is considered to be vexatious or malicious. If this occurs, the Committee must provide details to the appellant of their decision of the cessation of the appeals hearing and refer the matter to the DVC (Academic).

	18.3	The SAHP may adjourn the appeals hearing in the following instances:
		a requirement of additional information and/or clarification; illness of a member; declaration of bias; or procedural errors.
		In this instance, the SAC Officer will notify the appellant of the adjournment; provide reasons and provide details of an expected date of reschedule.

		In the case of a declaration of bias, the SAC Officer will select a replacement panel member. If a member of the SAHP withdraws during a hearing then the matter will be re-heard from the beginning with the new SAHP unless the Chair and the student agree otherwise.

	18.4	The SAHP may uphold or dismiss any appeal, in whole or in part. The SAHP must dismiss the appeal unless the majority of the members are satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that a ground of appeal has been established.

		The Chair of the SAHP has both an ordinary and a casting vote. The student will not be advised of the make up of the vote; this shall remain confidential.

	18.5	The Chair of the SAHP may embargo the release of information about the SAHP's decision on any particular appeal until the student and relevant staff have been officially notified by the SAC Officer or Chair.

	18.6	All appeal decisions made by the SAHP shall be final and conclusive. If the student wishes to lodge a complaint, they will be directed to the Ombudsman’s Office.

	18.7	At the conclusion of the appeals hearing, the SAC Officer will provide all appellants with a formal notification letter, detailing the outcome and reasons for the decision.

	18.8	Where the SAHP has determined not to uphold an appeal but has agreed that some redress or action should still be taken, the SAHP may make recommendations or directives to the relevant party; and such recommendations or directives shall be accompanied by a rationale. These will be noted at the following SAC meeting. A follow-up report on the recommended or directed action(s) is to be provided to the SAC within 3 months of the date of the recommendation or directive.

	18.9	The SAC Officer will notify the School Dean of any decision or recommendations concerning corrective and preventative action within 10 University working days. These responses will be tabled for discussion at the next SAC meeting.

19.0	STUDENT APPEALS COMMITTEE

	19.1	The SAC shall meet at least twice per year.

	19.2	The SAC shall report to the Learning and Teaching Committee twice per year.

	19.3	A quorum shall consist of a majority of voting members.

RESPONSIBILITIES:
Responsible Officer	Student Appeals Committee Officer
Implementation Officers
Information Contact Officer	Student Appeals Committee Officer

RELATED MATERIALS/POLICIES:

Academic Progress Rules for Bachelor Degrees
Assessment Policy
Bachelor Degree Regulations
Student Discipline Regulations

REVISION HISTORY:
Approved/Amended/Rescinded	Date	Committee	Resolution Number
Approved	4 March 2009	Academic Council	AC/30/2009