1 / 18

Briefing for Investigating Officers

Briefing for Investigating Officers. Marie Ward. Head of Student Governance 2013/2014 m.ward@ljmu.ac.uk. Scope of session. To support staff with responsibility for investigating: Student Complaints Academic Misconduct allegations Student Disciplinary issues

deo
Download Presentation

Briefing for Investigating Officers

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Briefing forInvestigating Officers Marie Ward. Head of Student Governance 2013/2014 m.ward@ljmu.ac.uk

  2. Scope of session To support staff with responsibility for investigating: • Student Complaints • Academic Misconduct allegations • Student Disciplinary issues • Staff grievances – same principles but different protocols

  3. Scope of session • Consideration of evidence • Interviewing complainant /witnesses • Presenting findings • Writing a report

  4. Four Key Stages • Establish scope & terms of the investigation • Collation of evidence • Analysis of evidence • Reaching conclusions / findings

  5. Student / University Contract • Student agrees to abide by regulations and be subject to relevant procedures (disciplinary / academic / complaints etc). • University agrees to ensure robust & fair proceedings (to investigate / make findings / impose penalties as appropriate). • University must follow own procedures and public law principles of natural justice.

  6. Principles of Natural Justice. Principles of fairness underpinning public law: • There are two sides to every dispute • All parties are given the opportunity to provide evidence to substantiate their version of the issue / incident • Full disclosure of any allegations and evidence will be made to those parties involved • All parties have the right to be accompanied by a ‘friend’ at each stage of the procedure. • All parties have the right to an unbiased & fair consideration of the matter.

  7. Scope & terms of the investigation • What is the nature of the investigation? • Identify those involved • Which procedures are being followed? • Complaint against: • Student • Staff • Service • Disciplinary Investigation • Academic Misconduct .

  8. Collate evidence Documentary evidence: • Emails • Facebook • Letters • Programme / Module Handbooks • CCTV • Other Determine who to interview and in what context: • As witness or complainant • Notes / witness statements

  9. Not a criminal investigation!! University has no authority to: Enter private property or conduct searches Compel individuals to attend interview or hearing

  10. Conducting Interviews Ensure that the interviewee is aware: • Of the proceedings being followed (HR, SG, complaint, discipline etc) • Of their role in the investigation ( complainant / witness) • That full disclosure of allegations & evidence will be made to relevant parties (including interview summaries / witness statements) • That information will normally remain confidential to the investigation (but cannot be guaranteed - the matter may be escalated to external third party - OIA or Court for example) • Record of the interview – not verbatim

  11. Evaluating Evidence • Relevance • Credibility • Weight • Hearsay

  12. Analysing the Evidence • Be objective • Challenge inconsistencies • To what extent does the evidence support the allegations? • Is the evidence relevant / hearsay /third party /prejudicial? • If conflicting evidence, which is more credible and why

  13. Conclusions / findings Standard of proof is civil standard • reasonable belief - balance of probabilities based on the evidence. Not criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt but: • Seriousness of the allegation / potential consequences - weight of evidence The basis for the final decision / recommendation should be clear and explicit.

  14. Writing the report Introduction • Substance of complaint / allegation(s) • Under which procedure Summary of investigation process • Evidence • Who was interviewed and why • Cross reference evidence / documentation Outcome of investigation • Upheld / Upheld in part / Not upheld • Why? • Address all aspects of the matter as summarised in the introduction

  15. Also include in the report • Further action • Recommendations • Good practice • Feedback

  16. Process Risks The outcome of the investigation may be challenged via appeals / OIA / judicial review • Inadequate collection / poor presentation of evidence • Failure to follow due process • Process or outcome is unfair or unreasonable • Unreasonable delay • Witnesses unavailable • Too long after the incident • Memories fading • Impeding academic progress • Financial loss

  17. Institutional risks Badly managed cases can be more easily (and successfully) challenged • Reputational damage • May attract public / press attention • Financial costs • Balance between duty of care to students and possible risks to university in context of employer • Staff relationships / performance

  18. Questions?

More Related