Document Comments

Bulletin Board - Review and Comment

Step 1 of 4: Comment on Document

How to make a comment?

1. Use this Protected Document to open a comment box for your chosen Section, Part, Heading or clause.

2. Type your feedback into the comments box and then click "save comment".

3. Do not open more than one comment box at the same time.

4. When you have finished making comments click on the "Continue to Step 2" button at the very bottom of this page.

 

Important Information

Your connection may time out due to inactivity. To avoid losing your comments, we suggest:

  1. Do not jump between web pages/applications or log comments for more than one document at a time.

  2. Do not leave your submission half way through. If you need to take a break, submit your current set of comments. The system will email you a copy of your comments so you can identify where you were up to and add to them later.

  3. Do not exit until you have completed all three stages of the submission process. Your feedback will not be saved until you prove you are human.

 

Student Misconduct Procedure

Section 1 - Preamble

(1) Charles Darwin University (‘the University’, ‘CDU’) is committed to a safe, respectful, and inclusive community in which all students, staff, and visitors can study, work, and engage free from harm.

(2) Misconduct is conduct that breaches the standards expected of students. Misconduct undermines this commitment and the well-being of those who experience it.

(3) The University is committed to a trauma-informed, proportionate, and procedurally fair approach to the management of misconduct allegations. Except where safety concerns or other significant risks are present, the University adopts an educative-first approach.

Top of Page

Section 2 - Purpose

(4) This procedure describes the management of alleged and substantiated student misconduct, including intake, investigation, determination, review and appeal.

(5) This procedure supports and operationalises the Student Misconduct By-laws (by-laws).  

Top of Page

Section 3 - Scope

(6) This procedure applies to alleged and substantiated general misconduct and academic misconduct by current students, past students, and applicants where the conduct is connected to their enrolment at or application to the University, including:

  1. in or related to their course;
  2. on University premises or at University-affiliated locations, including student accommodation, placement sites, clinical or workplace settings, and partner organisation premises;
  3. during a University activity, whether on campus, off campus, or online, including teaching activities, examinations, official meetings, sports, cultural, or social events organised by or under the auspices of the University, and student association activities;
  4. in an online environment where members of the University community are participants or are the subject of the conduct, including in closed groups that have been constituted in relation to a unit of study, a course, a campus, or a University-affiliated activity, regardless of whether the group is hosted on University infrastructure; and
  5. in a manner directed at a member of the University community by reason of that person's role at, or association with, the University.

(7) This procedure does not apply to the research components of higher degree by research programs, which are managed under the Responsible Conduct of Research Procedure.

Top of Page

Section 4 - Procedure

Definitions and types of misconduct

(8) Table 1 and Table 2 define the types of general and academic misconduct and provide guidance on their seriousness. Table 1 and Table 2 are not exhaustive.

  1. Where conduct not listed in Table 1 is contrary to the standards expected of students under the Code of Conduct - Students and is not academic misconduct, including contravention of other University governance documents, it may be treated as general misconduct under this procedure.
  2. Where conduct not listed in Table 2 constitutes an attempt to gain an unfair advantage contrary to the principles of academic integrity as outlined in the Academic Integrity Policy, it may be treated as academic misconduct under this procedure.
  3. A pattern of conduct that, taken as a whole, constitutes misconduct may be the subject of an allegation under this procedure, even if individual instances of the conduct, viewed in isolation, would not have warranted a finding. Aggregated conduct must be specifically identified in the allegation notice so that the student knows the case to be met.
  4. The types of conduct classified in Table 1 and Table 2 as “no less than serious” are not eligible for Pathway A treatment. In addition, conduct that is concurrently a criminal matter is not eligible for Pathway A treatment.

Table 1 – Types of general misconduct

Type Definition Notes
Violence, threats, and weapons Physical violence; attempts at physical violence; credible threats of violence directed at any person; the possession, use, or supply of a prohibited weapon on University premises or at a University activity. Pathway C trigger applies. Automatically classified as no less than serious. Authorised officer immediate response powers apply.
Sexual misconduct and gender-based violence Sexual misconduct, sexual harassment, sexual assault, image-based abuse, and other forms of gender-based violence as defined in the Code of Conduct - Students and the Gender-based Violence Prevention Policy.
Automatically classified as no less than serious. Pathway C trigger may apply. Where a formal report has been made under the Gender-based Violence Response Procedure, the provisions of that procedure continue to apply (including its same-day notification obligation). Safer Communities refers to SCCMU under the warm handover.
Harassment, bullying, and discrimination Conduct that has the purpose or effect of intimidating, offending, humiliating, threatening, or causing detriment to another person, including conduct that constitutes unlawful discrimination, harassment, sexual harassment, or victimisation under applicable anti-discrimination law. Applies to conduct in person, in writing, or through any electronic means. A pattern of low-level conduct may aggregate to harassment even where individual instances would not.
Hate-based conduct Conduct, including verbal, written, electronic, or symbolic conduct, that vilifies, demeans, or incites hatred or contempt based on race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, or any other protected attribute. Includes racism towards First Nations peoples, antisemitism, Islamophobia, other forms of racism, and religious vilification. Automatically classified as no less than serious.
Stalking and coercive control Repeated unwanted contact, surveillance, monitoring, or coercive behaviour directed at a person, whether in person or by electronic means, that would cause a reasonable person in the position of the affected person to fear for their safety or wellbeing. Automatically classified as no less than serious. Includes technology-facilitated coercive control.
Online and technology-facilitated abuse Conduct in an online environment that constitutes cyber abuse, image-based abuse, doxing, impersonation accounts targeting University community members, harassment in closed groups, the unauthorised disclosure of intimate images, or other conduct captured by the Online Safety Act 2021 (Cth).
Automatically classified as no less than serious where the conduct also constitutes sexual misconduct, hate-based conduct, or stalking.
See Pathway C: reporting to the eSafety Commissioner may proceed concurrently.
Disruption and obstruction Wilful disruption of any teaching activity, examination, official meeting, or University proceeding; wilful obstruction of a member of University staff in the performance of their duties; or unauthorised entry to, or remaining on, parts of University premises where authority is known or ought reasonably to be known to be required. Authorised officer immediate response powers apply.
Property damage, theft, and misuse Wilful damage to, theft of, or misuse of University Property, or property of another person on University premises or at a University activity.  Restitution may be considered as part of a proportionate response. 
Misuse of identity, records, and confidentiality Knowingly making a false representation in connection with one’s status as a student or another person’s status; unauthorised access to, or alteration of, University documents, records, or information systems; or the unauthorised disclosure of confidential University information where the student knows or ought reasonably to know it is confidential. May intersect with the Fraud and Corruption Control Policy. Where the conduct involves bribery of staff, falsification of statutory documents, or theft of examination materials involving staff, Pathway C reporting obligations under the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Act 2017 (NT) may apply.
Substance-related conduct Unauthorised possession, use, or supply of prohibited substances on University premises or at a University activity, or intoxication that causes harm to others, disruption to University activities, or damage to property.
Cross-references the Alcohol, Drugs and Other Substances Policy, the Code of Conduct - Students, and the University’s health and safety obligations. Pathway C trigger may apply.
Failure to comply with a reasonable direction Disobeying a reasonable direction given by an Authorised Officer, or another staff member acting within their authority; or failing to identify oneself, or to produce evidence of identity, when required by an officer of the University acting in the course of duty. A ‘reasonable direction’ includes a direction given for the safety of any person, the orderly conduct of a University activity, or the proper functioning of University facilities.
Breach of an interim measure or penalty Breach of an interim measure or penalty imposed under this procedure, the Gender-based Violence Response Procedure, or any predecessor instrument. Automatically classified as no less than serious.
Retaliation against complainants, witnesses, or participants Conduct that adversely affects, or attempts to adversely affect, a person by reason of that person’s participation in a misconduct, complaint, or grievance process, including a report made in good faith, the giving of evidence, or the provision of support to a participant. Automatically classified as no less than serious.
Vexatious or bad-faith allegations The making of an allegation of misconduct that is known to be false, made for an improper purpose, or made in circumstances that demonstrate a reckless disregard for the truth. The threshold and procedural protections apply. The Right to Report principle in by-laws is preserved.
Unlawful conduct Conduct that constitutes an offence under Australian law and that is connected to the University community or to the student’s enrolment, whether or not external authorities are taking action. May trigger Pathway C external referral. Concurrent criminal proceedings provisions apply.
Facilitation and concealment Facilitating, encouraging, inducing, or knowingly concealing general misconduct by another student. A student who, in good faith, reports concerns about another student’s conduct, or who is unable to prevent or report misconduct, is not in breach of this clause.

Table 2 – Types of academic misconduct

Type Definition Notes
Academic fraud A false representation made with the intent of obtaining an unfair advantage in an academic context. Includes falsifying qualifications, fabricating supervisor reports, or misrepresenting academic history. Pathway C trigger applies. Automatically classified as no less than serious.
Cheating
A deliberate attempt to gain an unfair advantage, including:
a. unauthorised early access to assessment or examination papers;
b. communicating with or copying from another person during an examination or timed assessment; or
c. using or supplying unauthorised material during an examination.		 Includes unauthorised electronic devices and reference materials. Examination misconduct involving deliberate advance preparation, unauthorised materials, or identity substitution is automatically classified as no less than serious.
Collusion Any unauthorised collaboration in the preparation or presentation of work, including knowingly allowing another person to copy or use your work. Distinct from authorised group work. The test is whether the collaboration was authorised by the Unit Coordinator or vocational education and training (VET) Trainer/Assessor for the specific assessment item.
Contract cheating Securing a person or computer program, including a generative AI tool used as a ghost-writer, to complete part or all of an assessment item that is submitted as the student’s own work. Pathway C trigger applies. Automatically classified as no less than serious.
Credential sharing Disclosing or making available the student’s University login credentials, including username and password, multi-factor authentication codes, or single sign-on access, to another person, in circumstances where the student knew or ought reasonably to have known that the credentials would be used in connection with an assessment item, the misuse of the University’s learning systems, or the acquisition of information from the University’s systems. Credential sharing is a common feature of contract-cheating arrangements, in which the third party uses the credentials to both submit the assessment item and extract assessment materials, learning resources, or other information from the student’s account. Where credentials are shared in connection with a contract-cheating arrangement, the conduct is treated as contract cheating (and therefore automatically classified as no less than serious). Where credentials are shared in other circumstances connected to assessment, for example, with a friend or family member who completes part of an assessment, the conduct is considered facilitation and is also automatically classified as no less than serious. Pathway A may be appropriate only where the disclosure was inadvertent, did not result in any use connected to assessment, and was reported promptly by the student. Parallel cybersecurity response applies in all cases.
Duplicate submission Resubmitting or substantially reusing work previously submitted for assessment, as if it were new work, without the express permission of the relevant Unit Coordinator or VET Trainer/Assessor. Applies for work originally submitted to CDU and work originally submitted to another institution. Also see plagiarism.
Fabrication The intentional use of information, data, research results, workplace records, or evidence that has been invented or distorted and presented as genuine. Includes fabricating workplace hours, clinical records, or supervisor attestations in VET placement assessments. Where it involves research results, workplace records, or attestations, automatically classified as no less than serious.
File sharing Transferring, trading, or making available assessment tasks, answers, completed assessment items, or course materials to others, including through internet-based platforms, in a way that enables another student to present that work as their own. Distinct from contract cheating in that payment is not required. Pathway A may be appropriate for first-time, inadvertent sharing.
Impersonation Assuming the identity of another person and completing assessments on their behalf, or permitting another person to assume your identity for assessment purposes. Includes remote impersonation in online assessments and proxy attendance in workplace placements. Automatically classified as no less than serious.
Inappropriate or unsanctioned use of generative artificial intelligence
Using a generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tool in a manner that is prohibited or not authorised by the assessment instructions for the relevant assessment item. GenAI misconduct exists on a spectrum:
  1. inadequate attribution or authorised but ambiguous use without required disclosure (least serious; may be managed under Pathway A where eligible);
  2. deliberate misattribution or use exceeding authorised scope, without disclosure;
  3. AI ghostwriting – use of GenAI to generate substantive content presented as the student’s own with the intent to deceive.
The applicable assessment instructions govern whether the use of GenAI is authorised, partially authorised, or prohibited. In situations involving mistaken inadequate attribution, ambiguous use without required disclosure, or use exceeding scope, a student cannot be found to have misused GenAI if the assessment instructions did not clearly communicate the applicable restrictions. Findings of deliberate misattribution and ghostwriting do not depend on instruction clarity.
AI ghost-writing is treated as equivalent to contract cheating and therefore classified as no less than serious
Misrepresentation
Presenting an untrue or incomplete statement that could mislead, including:
  1. misrepresenting attendance or participation in practical, performance, or professional learning activities;
  2. fabricating or citing non-existent or incorrect sources; or
  3. failing to disclose information when there is a duty to do so.
In VET, includes misrepresenting workplace experience, hours completed, or competency evidence in portfolios.
In HE, includes misrepresenting clinical placement hours or professional experience claimed for credit and fabricating participation records.
Plagiarism Presenting the work of another as your own without proper acknowledgement that clearly identifies which parts of the work originate from another source. Work includes ideas, interpretations, words, or creative outputs in any medium, whether published or unpublished. Includes self-plagiarism (duplicate submission). Inadvertent plagiarism resulting from poor referencing practice may be managed under Pathway A where eligible.
Solicitation and promoting breach Offering, inducing, or advertising for a person to complete an assessment on their behalf, or encouraging or assisting another student to breach academic integrity. Includes recruiting other students to use contract cheating services. Automatically classified as no less than serious.
Washing Deliberately disguising plagiarism or plagiarised content through paraphrasing, synonym substitution, AI laundering, or other methods designed to obscure the original source and avoid detection. Demonstrates intent to deceive. Automatically classified as no less than serious.

Regulatory framework

(9) Where the conduct that is the subject of an allegation under this procedure has, or appears to have, underlying causes related to the student's health, wellbeing, or capacity to study, the Student Conduct & Complaints Management Unit (SCCMU) may refer the student to the University's wellbeing process, the Fitness to Study Procedure, or the Fitness to Practise Policy and Procedure. A wellbeing, fitness-to-study, or fitness-to-practice process runs in parallel with proceedings under this procedure and does not displace them. Where the University establishes a Behavioural Threat Management Group, SCCMU may refer matters to that body in accordance with its terms of reference.

(10) This procedure is supported by:

  1. the Student Misconduct Penalty and Educative Response Schedule, which lists available penalties and educative responses and outlines penalty selection factors; and
  2. operational templates, specifically the:
    1. investigation plan and checklist;
    2. trauma-informed interview protocol;
    3. evidence log; and
    4. report template.  

Roles and responsibilities

(11) Any staff member who forms a reasonable suspicion that a student has engaged in misconduct is responsible for reporting the matter to SCCMU in accordance with this procedure. To protect the student from informal, unrecorded investigatory processes, to protect the staff member from acting outside scope, and to ensure that any engagement with the student occurs within the protections of a formal investigation, the reporting staff member:

  1. does not investigate the matter, interview the student, or seek the student's explanation of the conduct before referral;
  2. takes any reasonable steps within their authority to maintain the safety of those present, including by giving directions where they are an authorised officer;
  3. contemporaneously records what they observed in a written note that is provided to SCCMU as part of the referral; and
  4. where the staff member has a professional, supervisory, or pastoral relationship with the student, continues that relationship as usual unless directed otherwise by SCCMU for reasons of process integrity or safety.

(12) The Student Conduct & Complaints Management Unit (SCCMU) is the University's centralised, sole investigator for student misconduct matters. SCCMU:

  1. is the single point of intake for misconduct matters from any source;
  2. triages all incoming matters, including assessment of any vexatious or bad-faith referral;
  3. determines the correct pathway for each referral and manages referrals according to the processes applicable to each pathway.
  4. conducts all formal investigations and prepares the investigation brief;
  5. coordinates with Safer Communities where a matter has been received under the warm-handover protocol, and with the future or current wellbeing or fitness-to-study process where parallel pathways apply; and
  6. maintains the General Misconduct Register and the Academic Misconduct Register.

(13) Safer Communities is the University's specialist team within Student Support that provides trauma-informed support and leads the function for the response to gender-based violence under the Gender-based Violence Response Procedure. In matters under this procedure, Safer Communities:

  1. receives initial disclosures from victim-survivors of gender-based violence and provides trauma-informed support, safety planning, and information about options under the Gender-based Violence Response Procedure;
  2. where a formal report is made, and the alleged person of concern is a student, makes a warm handover to SCCMU;
  3. continues to provide support, safety planning, and trauma-informed contact throughout the misconduct process, in coordination with SCCMU;
  4. does not investigate matters under this procedure; and
  5. coordinates with the SCCMU on the design and review of any interim measure that affects a victim-survivor, on complainant communication, and on outcome notification.

Rights of students and others

(14) The Student Misconduct By-laws set out the rights of:

  1. students who are the subject of an allegation;
  2. complainants; and
  3. affected persons. 

(15) Where a student under the age of 18 is the subject of an allegation, SCCMU notify the parent or guardian of the allegation and invite them to participate as a support person, unless the student objects on reasonable grounds or notification would place the student at risk of harm. Where notification would place the student at risk of harm, SCCMU may arrange for an alternative support arrangement consistent with the Care and Protection of Children Act 2007 (NT).

(16) The University will make every reasonable effort to ensure that a student who reports suspected misconduct, or otherwise engages with the misconduct process, is protected from adverse action against them.

Immediate response and interim measures

Immediate response

(17) A staff member of the University acting within the scope of their role may give a reasonable direction to a student to:

  1. leave a class, examination, meeting, or other University activity for the duration of that activity;
  2. leave residential premises owned, operated, or managed by the University, or a specified part of those premises, for a period of up to 24 hours;
  3. refrain from conduct that is, in the reasonable assessment of the staff member, an immediate threat to the safety of any person present, or that is materially disruptive to the orderly conduct of a University activity; or
  4. comply with any other reasonable safety or order direction within the staff member's role.

(18) A staff member issuing immediate-response directions may not:

  1. impose an interpersonal no-contact direction operating across time or contexts;
  2. exclude a student from University accommodation beyond 24 hours;
  3. direct that a student withdraw from a unit, their course, or the University;
  4. beyond what is necessary to give a reasonable direction, investigate, interview the student about, or seek the student's explanation of the conduct;
  5. impose any monetary, academic, or other consequence on the student; or
  6. extend a reasonable direction beyond 24 hours. 

(19) A staff member may only give reasonable directions to a student if they reasonably believe the student’s conduct:

  1. impedes, or is likely to impede, the normal functioning of a University activity;
  2. contravenes, or is likely to contravene, the rules of use of a University facility;
  3. creates a perceived threat to the safety of any person; or
  4. creates a risk to University property or the property of any person present.

(20) Failure to comply with a reasonable direction given by a staff member is misconduct.  

Reporting an immediate response

(21) A staff member who has given reasonable directions to a student and suspects possible misconduct must, as soon as practicable and always within two (2) working days, make a report to SCCMU. The report must include:

  1. the identity of the student or students directed (where known);
  2. the direction given and the period for which it operates;
  3. the circumstances that gave rise to the direction;
  4. the identity and position of the staff member or authorised officer; and
  5. any contemporaneous notes taken. 

Interim measures

(22) In accordance with by-law 14, where there is an immediate risk to assessment or examination integrity, evidence preservation, the safety of any person, the integrity of an investigation, University property, or the prevention of further alleged misconduct, an authorised officer, in accordance with the Delegations Register, may impose interim measures pending the resolution of the matter.

  1. Interim measures imposed under the Gender-based Violence Response Procedure continue for matters referred to this procedure.

(23) An interim measure is directed at managing risk pending resolution. It is not based on, nor does it express, any view about whether the alleged conduct occurred, and its imposition is not a prejudgment of the matter.

(24) The interim measures that may be imposed include:

  1. a no-contact direction, requiring the student to refrain from contact with a named person or persons, operating across time and contexts;
  2. exclusion from University accommodation, in whole or in part, for a specified period;
  3. suspension of campus access, in whole or in part, for a specified period;
  4. removal from a specified class, tutorial, laboratory, placement, or other University activity, with alternative arrangements made where reasonably practicable;
  5. suspension of access to specified University systems, services, or facilities;
  6. conditional enrolment pending review; and
  7. any other measure that is reasonably necessary, having regard to the matter.

(25) Where an interim measure affects the student’s ability to undertake assessment, SCCMU arranges alternative academic arrangements, including deferred assessment or special consideration, where reasonably practicable, so that the interim measure does not cause academic detriment before a finding is made.

(26) An interim measure is imposed on terms that, so far as practicable, preserve the student's enrolment status, academic record, and fee position pending the resolution of the matter. Where an interim measure affects participation in a unit, class, or placement, alternative arrangements are made where reasonably practicable.

(27) Before imposing an interim measure, the decision-maker, where it is practicable and safe to do so, gives the student notice of the proposed measure and a reasonable opportunity to make representations. Where it is not practicable or safe to do so, the student is given an opportunity to make representations as soon as possible after the measure is imposed.

(28) A student may seek review of an interim measure by a Tier 2 decision-maker who has had no prior involvement in the matter. Review of an interim measure is separate from the review or appeal of the decision on the substantive matter.

(29) An interim measure, including an interim measure imposed under the Gender-based Violence Response Procedure for a matter subsequently referred to this procedure, is:

  1. recorded in the case record by SCCMU;
  2. reviewed by the decision-maker who imposed it at least every 30 days for the duration of the matter; and
  3. lifted as soon as it is no longer necessary.  

(30) Where interim measures are imposed on a student holding an international student visa:

  1. The interim measures will not be reported to the Department of Education (via PRISMS) until the completion of the investigation and any associated appeals process.
  2. Any suspension or cancellation of the student’s enrolment must not take effect until the overseas student has been given a chance to complete an internal appeals process, unless their health or wellbeing, or the wellbeing of others, is likely to be at risk.
  3. In the event of suspension or cancellation of enrolment, SCCMU will advise the student to seek advice from the Department of Home Affairs on the potential impact on their student visa.

(31) Where a complainant or affected person has requested a particular interim measure, SCCMU considers the request and provides written reasons for any departure from it.

Principles of investigation

(32) A formal investigation is conducted only where SCCMU has recorded an Authorisation Instrument, and only within the scope of the terms of reference of that instrument. The investigator conducts the investigation in accordance with the principles of natural justice. In particular:

  1. the respondent student is informed of the allegations against them and given access to the evidence on which the allegation is based (subject to redaction for safety, integrity, or third-party privacy), and to respond before any finding is made;
  2. the investigator does not rely on credibility-affecting adverse material that the respondent student has not had a real opportunity to address; and
  3. findings are made based on relevant evidence, with reasons.

(33) A formal investigation is conducted by an SCCMU staff member who holds, or is working towards under supervised arrangements, the Certificate IV in Government Investigations (PSP41504) or an equivalent qualification. The SCCMU Manager maintains a register of investigator qualifications and training.

(34) Investigators should maintain an open mind and avoid bias. Actual, perceived, and potential conflicts of interest are screened at the outset of the investigation and throughout it. Where a conflict is identified, the investigator notifies the SCCMU Manager and the matter is reassigned.

  1. Where all available investigators have a conflict of interest, or where independence, specialist expertise, capacity, trauma-informed capability, or complexity requires external appointment, the SCCMU Manager may recommend that the Vice-Chancellor (VC) appoint an external investigator.

(35) A formal investigation is conducted in a manner that:

  1. recognises the prevalence and impact of trauma among students, staff, and witnesses, and does not interpret trauma responses (including memory gaps, inconsistencies, delayed disclosure, or flat affect) as indicators of dishonesty;
  2. respects the cultural identity, knowledge systems, and communication preferences of First Nations students, international students, and culturally and linguistically diverse students, and does not interpret culturally specific communication patterns as indicators of dishonesty or lack of cooperation;
  3. provides for cultural support arrangements, culturally responsive interview arrangements, and interpreters where required for the student's effective participation; and
  4. coordinates with Safer Communities where the matter involves gender-based violence.

(36) Before a formal investigation commences, the SCCMU Manager confirms that the matter has been validly referred for formal investigation under triage, that the appointed investigator is free of any identified conflict of interest, and that the terms of reference are sufficient for the matter as understood at that point. Where the SCCMU Manager is the appointed investigator, this confirmation is made by another SCCMU staff member.

(37) An investigator will be granted access to University information, records, and systems that are relevant and proportionate to the matter. Organisational units of the University will provide reasonable and timely assistance to an investigator. Subject to the Information Act 2002 (NT), the Records and Information Management Policy and Procedure, and the scope of the Authorisation Instrument, University records may include, but are not limited to:

  1. Academic records.
  2. Learning management system (LMS) data.
  3. Library and authentication logs.
  4. Security and campus records.

Authorisation Instrument

(38) Before a formal investigation commences, SCCMU records the terms of reference for the matter in an Authorisation Instrument, comprising:

  1. the alleged conduct;
  2. the specific provision of the Code of Conduct - Students, Academic Integrity Policy, or other governance document engaged;
  3. the classification of the matter and the decision-maker to whom the matter will be referred for determination;
  4. the scope of the investigation;
  5. the expected timeframe; and 
  6. the SCCMU investigator or investigators appointed.  

(39) SCCMU may amend the Authorisation Instrument where the scope or classification of the matter changes or where fresh information materially alters the matter. An amendment does not invalidate any step properly taken before the amendment.

Evidence gathering

(40) The investigator gathers evidence that is relevant to the matter. Original evidence is preserved, a chain of custody is maintained, and working copies are used to conduct the investigation. 

(41) The investigator maintains an evidence log in the evidence log form, recording each item of evidence, its source, the date and manner of its collection, and its handling.

(42) An artificial intelligence tool may be used in support of a formal investigation only where:

  1. the tool is fit for the purpose for which it is used;
  2. the handling of data complies with the Information Act 2002 (NT), the University’s privacy obligations, and the Generative Artificial Intelligence Policy;
  3. any finding or decision is made by a person authorised under this procedure, and not by the tool;
  4. the use of the tool is disclosed in the investigation brief; and
  5. the respondent student is informed in the brief of any use of an artificial intelligence tool in its preparation. 

(43) An automated detection tool, including an indicator of AI-generated content, is not sufficient on its own to support a finding. 

Interviews

(44) SCCMU gives reasonable notice of an interview. Any support person or cultural support person attends to support the interviewee and is neither a representative nor a witness.

(45) Audio recording is the default for a formal interview in a formal investigation. The interviewee is informed before recording commences. Recordings are stored in accordance with the Information Act 2002 (NT) and the Records and Information Management Policy and Procedure. The interviewee may request access to the recording or a transcript. A recording is used only for the conduct of the matter and any review or appeal.

Intake and triage

(46) SCCMU is the single point of intake for all misconduct matters, and anyone, including staff, students, external bodies and members of the public, can refer a matter of suspected misconduct to SCCMU if they have reasonable grounds to believe it has occurred. In cases of suspected academic misconduct:

  1. A referring academic staff member is responsible for applying their academic and professional judgement to identify assessment items that may not represent the student’s own work or may otherwise constitute academic misconduct.
  2. Detection tools, including text-matching software and AI content indicators, may inform this judgment but are only prompts for inquiry and must be accompanied by independent evidence before a referral is lodged.
  3. An academic staff member who suspects academic misconduct must not conduct an informal investigatory process or seek a substantive explanation from the student before referral, except as required for limited administrative clarification. An academic staff member who is unsure whether the referral threshold has been met should seek guidance from SCCMU.
  4. Once the decision to refer is made, the student’s result for the relevant assessment item must be withheld and set to IR (Under Investigation or Review). This is communicated to the student in plain English as a preservation measure pending investigation, not a penalty. The communication neither discloses the substance of the suspected misconduct nor invites the student to respond at this stage. The result is reinstated within 2 working days if the matter is dismissed.
  5. A referral must be lodged in the online reporting system within 5 working days of the Unit Coordinator or Trainer/Assessor forming a reasonable suspicion.

(47) A Unit Coordinator or Trainer/Assessor who has referred a matter may request withdrawal of the referral by providing written reasons within 5 working days of lodgement. Withdrawal requires the written agreement of the SCCMU Manager. Upon approval, the student is notified in writing, and the withheld result is reinstated within 2 working days.

(48) Where SCCMU dismisses a referral at triage or following investigation, the referring Unit Coordinator or Trainer/Assessor has no right of review or appeal against the dismissal. Should new evidence become available, the Unit Coordinator or Trainer/Assessor may re-refer the matter within 10 working days of becoming aware of the new evidence.

(49) SCCMU may prioritise the order in which matters are addressed where:

  1. the matter involves an ongoing safety risk to any person;
  2. the matter involves a student whose visa status, residency, or imminent enrolement milestone is affected by the timing of the resolution; or
  3. other operational circumstances make prioritisation appropriate.  

(50) Prioritisation does not affect the substantive determination of any matter. Where the prima facie case discloses conduct that, if substantiated, would be classified as serious or severe, the student cannot rely on enrolment timing or other operational urgency as a justification for expedited resolution; the integrity of the investigation takes precedence.

(51) Any individual (including staff, other students, and third parties) who has been adversely affected by a student's conduct may submit a complaint under the Complaints Policy - Students. Where an investigation under that policy finds that the conduct breached the Code of Conduct - Students, the matter becomes an allegation of misconduct and proceeds in accordance with this procedure.

  1. The complainant is informed in writing of the conversion, the reasons, and the rights applicable under this procedure, in addition to any continuing rights under the Complaints Policy - Students.
  2. A complainant who is also an affected person determines their level of participation in the misconduct proceedings. SCCMU uses the complaints investigation record and does not require the complainant or witnesses to retell their account. Complainants and witnesses may withdraw their active participation at any stage. Withdrawal does not, of itself, end the matter.
  3. Conversion does not extinguish the complaint.
  4. If a complaint, investigated as potential misconduct under this procedure, is dismissed, the SCCMU will notify the complainant in writing of the dismissal and provide a summary of the reasons. The complainant will also be advised that their rights in relation to the outcome of the complaint are governed by the Complaints Policy - Students and its associated procedures. SCCMU may, with the complainant's consent, refer the matter back to the complaints process for any continuing handling under that process. The dismissal of a matter under this procedure does not constitute a determination of the complaint under the Complaints Policy - Students.

Warm handover from Safer Communities

(52) Where a formal report of gender-based violence has been made to Safer Communities under the Gender-based Violence Response Procedure and the alleged person of concern is a student, Safer Communities makes a warm handover to SCCMU at the formal-report stage. Under the warm handover:

  1. Safer Communities continues to provide support, safety planning, and trauma-informed contact throughout the process;
  2. SCCMU receives the formal report as a complaint and conducts the complaint investigation in coordination with Safer Communities and in accordance with the Gender-based Violence Response Procedure and the Complaints Policy - Students. The matter becomes an allegation of misconduct under this procedure if the investigation finds that the conduct breached the Code of Conduct - Students;
  3. SCCMU and Safer Communities coordinate on interim measures, complainant communication, and outcome notification, in accordance with the operational protocol between the two units;
  4. on conversion to a misconduct allegation, the matter proceeds to Pathway B as a standard-track matter and is automatically classified as no less than serious;
  5. the complainant retains the rights, supports, and protections under this procedure, the Gender-based Violence Response Procedure, and the Complaints Policy - Students; and
  6. the communication timeframes in the Gender-based Violence Response Procedure continue to apply, including the 5-to-10 working day update for formal reports and the same-day notification of outcome and rationale to both parties, victim-survivor first.

Anonymous reports and confidentiality

(53) An anonymous report:

  1. is assessed against the prima facie test below;
  2. may trigger interim measures where the conduct alleged, if substantiated, would warrant interim measures;
  3. may contribute to pattern detection or risk assessment, including where multiple anonymous reports concerning the same alleged conduct, or the same alleged respondent, are received over time; and
  4. cannot, by itself and without corroboration, be the sole basis for a finding of general misconduct against an identified respondent.

(54) Where a person can be identified by reasonable inquiry following an anonymous report and the conduct alleged is serious or severe, SCCMU may pursue corroborating evidence consistent with the principles of procedural fairness.

(55) The identity of a reporter is not disclosed to the alleged respondent without the reporter's consent, except where disclosure is required for procedural fairness. Where disclosure of the reporter's identity is required, SCCMU informs the reporter in advance and considers any safety implications, including in consultation with Safer Communities where the matter involves gender-based violence.

Triage

(56) All referrals must present evidence sufficient to establish a prima facie case of misconduct on the balance of probabilities. Where a referral does not establish a prima facie case, SCCMU may return the referral with guidance, dismiss the matter at triage, or, in the case of an anonymous report or a report from an unidentified source, retain the report for pattern-detection and risk-management purposes without proceeding to investigation.

(57) SCCMU may determine that a matter received under this procedure is more appropriately addressed under the Complaints Policy - Students. SCCMU refers the matter to the complaints process. Where the person who raised the matter can be identified, SCCMU informs that person in writing of the referral and the reasons.

Vexatious and bad-faith referrals

(58) A Tier 2 decision maker may determine that a referral is vexatious, frivolous, or made in bad faith if:

  1. the allegation is made without reasonable basis;
  2. the allegation is known by the maker to be false; or
  3. the allegation is made for an improper purpose, including to harass, intimidate, or retaliate against another person against whom the allegation is made.

(59) A referral will not be considered vexatious, frivolous, or made in bad faith just because:

  1. the allegation is not substantiated; or
  2. the referrer acted in good faith but was mistaken.

(60) SCCMU will assess referrals for indicators of being vexatious, frivolous, or made in bad faith any may flag this with the Tier 2 decision-maker.  

(61) Where a Tier 2 decision-maker determines that an allegation is vexatious or made in bad faith:

  1. where the maker is a student, the matter may constitute misconduct and may initiate an allegation under this procedure;
  2. where the maker is a staff member, the matter may be addressed under the Charles Darwin University and Union Enterprise Agreement and the Code of Conduct - Employees;
  3. where the maker is a third party external to the University, SCCMU may decline to receive further allegations from that person on the matter, subject to the NSW Ombudsman: Unreasonable Complainant Conduct - Practice Manual framework; and
  4. the person against whom the original allegation was made is informed in writing of the determination, and any record of the original allegation is annotated to reflect the determination.

Concurrent criminal proceedings and stay requests

(62) A misconduct matter may proceed concurrently with, and independently of, any criminal, civil, regulatory, or external complaint process. The University may suspend internal proceedings where it is necessary to avoid prejudicing an external process, with the student notified in writing.

(63) Where a misconduct matter relates to conduct that is, or may become, the subject of a criminal investigation or prosecution, the student may decline to answer a specific question where the student reasonably believes that the answer may tend to incriminate them in the criminal matter. No adverse inference is drawn from the exercise of this right.

(64) A student may request that the misconduct proceedings be stayed pending the resolution of a criminal matter.

(65) In considering a request for a stay, the decision-maker considers:

  1. the stage of the criminal proceedings;
  2. the risk that the conduct of the misconduct matter may prejudice the criminal proceedings;
  3. any safety considerations or risk to the integrity of the University environment;
  4. the public interest in the timely resolution of misconduct matters; and
  5. whether interim measures can adequately manage risk pending the resolution of the criminal matter.

(66) A decision on a stay request is made by the decision-maker for the matter at the relevant tier. The decision is recorded in writing with reasons and provided to the student. A decision not to stay proceedings does not displace the protections under the by-laws or this procedure.

(67) A stay of the substantive proceedings does not lift or stay any interim measure. Interim measures continue to operate, and may be imposed, varied, or reviewed while a stay is in force.

Part A -  Educative resolution (Pathway A)

(68) Pathway A provides a non-punitive, educative response for misconduct concerns:

  1. that appear to arise from academic integrity concerns, inexperience, miscommunication, or a one-off departure from expected standards;
  2. where the conduct is not automatically classified as no less than serious; and
  3. where any complainant or affected person consents to the resolution.

(69) Conduct automatically classified as no less than serious is not eligible for Pathway A resolution regardless of any other circumstance.

(70) Pathway A is not a finding of misconduct and does not appear on the student’s academic transcript or record. SCCMU maintains a record of Pathway A for the purposes of pattern detection and classification of any subsequent matter.

Eligibilty

(71) A matter may be resolved under Pathway A where all of the criteria in Table 3 are met:

Table 3 – Eligibility for Pathway A

General Misconduct Academic Misconduct
  1. the conduct is not automatically classified as no less than serious;
  2. where there is an identifiable complainant or affected person, that person has been informed of the option of Pathway A resolution, has had access to support and advice, and has consented to the resolution proceeding under Pathway A;
  3. the student does not have a substantive prior record of general misconduct, including a prior Pathway A record, that would make a non-punitive response unsuitable; and
  4. the conduct, if substantiated, would fall within the minor classification under the Student Misconduct Penalty and Educative Response Schedule;
  5. the matter is not one in which the University's institutional interest in pursuing the matter formally outweighs the suitability of an educative response.
  1. the student has no prior record of academic misconduct or poor academic practice in their current course at CDU or with a CDU partner organisation;
  2. the student is new to tertiary study in the relevant sector, which, for this procedure, means the student has not previously completed 80 credit points or equivalent at AQF Level 5 or above at any Australian institution (HE), or has not previously completed twelve competency units in a VET qualification. Where a student’s circumstances do not fit this test, including where they hold prior tertiary qualifications from overseas institutions or where they are returning to study after a long absence, SCCMU may determine Pathway A eligibility on a discretionary basis, having regard to whether the student is genuinely new to the academic conventions of the relevant sector; and
  3. the evidence does not indicate that the student intended to gain an unfair advantage. The issue is more consistent with carelessness, inexperience, or genuine misunderstanding than with deliberate dishonesty.

General Misconduct Process

(72) Where Pathway A eligibility is confirmed and the student agrees to participate, SCCMU determines the appropriate intervention, having regard to the nature of the conduct, the harm caused, and the views of any complainant or affected person. The intervention must be specific, achievable, and proportionate to the conduct. 

(73) Where property damage or financial loss has been caused by the conduct, recovery of the loss is conducted through the University’s existing debt-recovery and administrative processes and is not a Pathway A intervention.

(74) The student must engage with and complete the Pathway A intervention within 20 working days of notification, unless SCCMU grants an extension. Where the student declines Pathway A, fails to engage without reasonable cause, or breaches an undertaking given under Pathway A, SCCMU may transition the matter to Pathway B.

Academic Misconduct Process

(75) Following triage, SCCMU may consult the Unit Coordinator or Trainer/Assessor on the content-specific question of whether the concern is consistent with poor academic practice rather than deliberate misconduct. SCCMU records in writing its decision to confirm or decline, with brief reasons.

(76) Where Pathway A eligibility is confirmed, SCCMU notifies the student in writing that:

  1. a concern has been raised about their academic work;
  2. the matter is being treated as poor academic practice rather than formal misconduct;
  3. they will be required to complete a specific educative intervention and provide evidence of completion within 15 working days, unless granted an extension by SCCMU;
  4. a record will be kept for the purpose of assessing any future concerns; and
  5. the outcome is not a finding of academic misconduct and will not appear on their academic transcript.

(77) SCCMU determines the educative intervention based on the nature of the practice concern, in consultation with the Unit Coordinator or Trainer/Assessor when discipline-specific academic input is required. The intervention must be specific and meaningful, targeted to the practice deficit identified. 

(78) Where a student fails to engage with the Pathway A intervention without reasonable cause and:

(79) non-engagement reflects disengagement from study generally, SCCMU refers the student to the appropriate support services. In this instance, non-engagement is noted in the record but does not of itself trigger Pathway B transition; or

  1. non-engagement reveals that the original classification was wrong (for example, where the student’s conduct during the intervention discloses deliberate intent to deceive that was not apparent at referral), SCCMU may transition the matter to Pathway B.
  2. Non-engagement is a relevant factor in any future assessment of the student’s conduct.

(80) Where the educative response does not include resubmission the Unit Coordinator or Trainer/Assessor determines the assessment outcome for the relevant item in accordance with their normal assessment judgement.

(81) A Pathway A outcome is recorded in the University’s case management system as poor academic practice. The record includes the student’s details, the unit and assessment item, the identified concern, the required educative response, and evidence of completion.

Further concerns and transition to Pathway B

(82) Where a further academic integrity concern arises in respect of the same student after a Pathway A outcome, the new concern is triaged on its own merits. The existence of the prior Pathway A outcome is a factor in determining whether Pathway A is available for the new matter.

(83) A matter initially assessed as eligible for Pathway A is transitioned to Pathway B formal investigation, and the student provided with written reasons, where:

  1. further evidence emerges that the student intended to gain an unfair advantage;
  2. SCCMU or the SCCMU Manager determines, on review, that the matter was incorrectly assessed as eligible for Pathway A; or
  3. there is non-engagement by the student, except where non-engagement reflects disengagement from study generally and SCCMU refers the student to the appropriate support services.

Part B - Formal investigation and decision (Pathway B)

End-to-end resolution targets

(84) The University commits to the following stage-based operational timeframes for Pathway B matters:

Table 4 – Timeframe commitments

Stage General Misconduct Academic Misconduct
Triage, Pathway A eligibility decision, and expedited-track suitability decision 5 working days from complete referral 5 working days from complete referral
Expedited minor track (end to end, complete referral to decision notice) Approximately 13 working days from complete referral Approximately 13 working days from complete referral
Investigation brief (standard track – minor and serious matters) 25 working days from triage 20 working days from triage
Decision on minor matters (SCCMU Manager, standard track) 10 working days from receipt of brief 10 working days from receipt of brief
Decision on serious matters (Tier 2 decision-maker) 15 working days from receipt of brief 15 working days from receipt of brief
Panel constitution (severe matters) 20 working days from referral 20 working days from referral
Panel hearing and determination 30 working days from Panel constitution 30 working days from Panel constitution
Decision notice issued 10 working days from decision 10 working days from decision

(85) Table 5 lists the University’s end-to-end targets for misconduct resolutions. These are operational targets, not rights. Where a target cannot be met, SCCMU notifies the student and any complainant in writing of the delay and the expected revised timeframe, with reasons.

(86) The end-to-end targets, measured from complete referral to decision notice, are:

Table 5 – Timeframe targets

Classification Track End-to-end target
General misconduct		 End-to-end target
Academic misconduct
Minor Expedited Approximately 13 working days (3 weeks) Approximately 13 working days (3 weeks)
Minor Standard Approximately 40 working days (8 weeks) Approximately 35 working days (7 weeks)
Serious Standard Approximately 50 working days (10 weeks) Approximately 45 working days (9 weeks)
Severe (Panel) Standard Approximately 85 working days (17 weeks) Approximately 80 working days (16 weeks)

Prioritisation of matters

(87) For matters arriving via the warm handover, the investigation must be finalised and a formal conclusion reached within 45 working days from formal report to decision notice, unless an extension is approved by the Vice-Chancellor, consistent with the Gender-based Violence Response Procedure. SCCMU and Safer Communities coordinate to achieve this timeframe, with priority given to matters involving identified ongoing safety risks.

(88) Where a withheld grade could affect a student’s enrolment in a linked unit in the following study period, the matter is flagged as a priority matter, and SCCMU aims to expedite. Where a matter cannot be resolved before the next study period commences, SCCMU may, in consultation with the relevant Unit Coordinator or Trainer/Assessor, seek permission for conditional enrolment pending the outcome. 

Expedited minor track

(89) A matter is eligible for the expedited minor track where all of the following criteria are met:

  1. the conduct is not automatically classified as no less than serious;
  2. the evidence is clear and substantially uncontested;
  3. the conduct, if substantiated, falls within the minor classification under the Student Misconduct Penalty and Educative Response Schedule; and
  4. either:
    1. the student admits the conduct in response to the allegation notice; or
    2. the student fails to respond to the allegation notice within the set timeframe.

(90) The expedited minor track is an administrative review process conducted by SCCMU within compressed timeframes:

  1. within 3 working days of receipt of a complete referral, SCCMU issues an allegation notice to the student that includes the substance of the allegation, the evidence relied upon, and notice that the matter is being processed on the expedited minor track;
  2. the student has 5 working days from receipt of the allegation notice to respond. The student may admit the conduct, contest the conduct, or seek a longer response period;
  3. where the student contests the conduct, raises substantive evidence requiring further inquiry, or requests transition to the standard track, the matter is transitioned to the standard track and the standard-track timeframes apply from the date of transition;
  4. within 5 working days of receipt of the student's response or expiry of the response period, the SCCMU Manager determines the matter and applies the Student Misconduct Penalty and Educative Response Schedule;
  5. a decision notice is issued, including information about the right of intra-procedural review.

Standard track investigation

(91) All formal investigations into alleged student misconduct conducted under Pathway B or Pathway C proceed to formal investigation conducted by SCCMU. Unit Coordinators and VET Trainers/Assessors do not investigate.

(92) A formal investigation commences with the issue of a written allegation notice to the respondent student. The notice sets out:

  1. The conduct alleged, in sufficient detail to enable the student to understand and respond to it;
  2. The specific Code of Conduct - Students, Academic Integrity Policy, or other governance document element or elements engaged;
  3. The evidence on which the allegation is based, subject to redaction for the safety of any person, the integrity of the investigation, or the privacy of a third party;
  4. The student’s rights under the by-laws, including the right to a support person, an advocate, or, where relevant, a cultural support person;
  5. The period within which the student may respond; and
  6. The support services available to the student.

(93) The allegation notice must include, enclose, or specify where to access all evidence that will be relied upon, so that the student can respond substantively within the standard 10 working day response period.

(94) SCCMU may extend the period for the student's response on reasonable grounds, including the complexity of the matter, the volume of evidence, the availability of a support person or interpreter, or the personal circumstances of the student.

(95) As part of the investigation, SCCMU invites the student and complainant (when identifiable) to provide mitigation and impact submissions, respectively. These submissions are incorporated into the investigation brief and are available to the decision-maker. Obtaining mitigation at the investigation stage, rather than at the decision stage, ensures consistent treatment across matters and is the responsibility of SCCMU.

(96) Where the matter arrived via the warm handover, SCCMU coordinates with Safer Communities throughout the investigation. Coordination includes joint planning of communication with the complainant and joint planning of outcome notification. The investigation function remains with SCCMU.

Investigation brief and classification

(97) The investigation brief is produced by SCCMU and provided to the decision-maker for determination. The investigation brief identifies:

  1. a summary and analysis of the evidence, considered on the balance of probabilities; 
  2. the type or types of misconduct relevant to the allegation and evidence;
  3. the student's response to the allegations;
  4. any impact statement provided by a complainant or affected person;
  5. the proposed classification of the matter (dismissed, minor, serious, or severe);
  6. the Code of Conduct - Students, Academic Integrity Policy, or other governance document element or elements engaged by the conduct;
  7. the range of outcomes available for the classification under the Student Misconduct Penalty and Educative Response Schedule;
  8. any mitigating or aggravating factors relevant to penalty determination; and
  9. any matter that should be referred under Pathway C.

(98) Before finalising the investigation brief, SCCMU will give the student a reasonable opportunity to respond to material adverse to the student.

(99) SCCMU classifies the matter into one of four outcomes and, if the outcome is minor, serious, and severe, provides the investigation brief to the relevant decision maker:

  1. Dismissed - the evidence does not establish misconduct on the balance of probabilities, the allegation is more appropriately addressed under another process, or the matter is otherwise without substance. The student is notified in writing, and any interim measure imposed is reviewed and any withheld assessment result reinstated within 2 working days.
  2. Minor - misconduct is substantiated and the conduct, considered against the Student Misconduct Penalty and Educative Response Schedule, falls within the minor range. It typically involves lower-impact conduct that is not automatically classified as no less than serious, an absence of deliberate intent to deceive, or first-time conduct that is nonetheless ineligible for Pathway A.
  3. Serious - misconduct is substantiated and the conduct, considered against the Student Misconduct Penalty and Educative Response Schedule, falls within the serious range. It includes all conduct automatically classified as no less than serious, deliberate conduct, conduct with a significant impact on assessment integrity, repeat findings, and all conduct that is not classified as severe.
  4. Severe - misconduct is substantiated and the conduct may warrant suspension exceeding 12 months, expulsion, or revocation of an award. Severe matters are referred directly to a Student Misconduct Panel under by-law 16.

Decision-making

(100) The SCCMU Manager determines matters classified as minor in terms of the Student Misconduct Penalty and Educative Response Schedule. The SCCMU Manager:

  1. is structurally separate from the investigation;
  2. administratively considers the investigation brief, including the student's mitigation submission and any complainant impact statement, and the range of outcomes available for the classification, unless the SCCMU Manager determines that a brief meeting with the student is appropriate; and
  3. provides a written decision notice.

(101) The Tier 2 decision-maker named in the Delegations Register (Head of Discipline, Dean, or equivalent for the affected faculty or TAFE) determines matters classified as serious, excluding severe. They:

  1. consider the investigation brief, including the student's mitigation submission and any complainant impact statement, and the range of outcomes available for the classification;
  2. determine whether misconduct is substantiated and, if so, impose a penalty within the serious range available under the Student Misconduct Penalty and Educative Response Schedule; and
  3. provide a written decision notice.

(102) SCCMU refers matters classified as severe to the Vice-Chancellor (or delegate) for the constitution of a Student Misconduct Panel. The Tier 2 decision-maker is not involved in determining severe matters. The Panel determines the matter afresh on the evidence presented, in accordance with the Student Misconduct Panel Terms of Reference.

(103) Where a decision-maker considers that a matter has been misclassified, the decision-maker must refer the matter back to SCCMU with written reasons. SCCMU reviews the classification, consults as necessary, and issues a revised classification. The student and any complainant are notified in writing of the reclassification, the reasons, and the applicable decision-maker. Response and decision timeframes restart from the date of notification. A decision-maker may not impose a penalty outside the range available for the original classification.

Decision notice and notification

(104) Where misconduct is found, the decision-maker determines the penalty by reference to the Student Misconduct Penalty and Educative Response Schedule and must have regard to the factors set out in it.

(105) Every substantiated finding must include an educative component from the Student Misconduct Penalty and Educative Response Schedule, unless the decision-maker records specific reasons why an educative component is not appropriate.

(106) For VET students, academic misconduct outcomes are aligned with the competency framework:

  1. Not Yet Competent (NYC): where the finding affects demonstrated competency, the assessment outcome is recorded as NYC. The student retains the right to reassessment in accordance with the VET Assessment System Policy and Procedure, subject to any conditions imposed;
  2. Supplementary skills assessment: where appropriate, the nature and conditions of the assessment must be specified in writing; and
  3. Qualification cancellation or referral: where the finding reveals that a competency determination, unit completion, or qualification was obtained through academic misconduct, the matter is referred to University Council rescind the award under the Conferral and Certification Policy.

(107) The student is notified in writing of the decision within 10 working days of the decision being made. The notice must:

  1. be written in plain English;
  2. provide the full details of the decision, including the factual findings and the reasons for the penalty imposed;
  3. identify the Code of Conduct - Students, Academic Integrity Policy, or other governance document element or elements engaged by the conduct;
  4. specify any educative component and the completion timeframe (typically 20 working days unless otherwise specified);
  5. state any conditions of continuing enrolment and the timeframe for implementation;
  6. for minor outcomes, advise the student of their right to seek intra-procedural review by a Tier 2 decision-maker, including the 10 working day timeframe, and that the review is final and not subject to further internal review or appeal;
  7. for serious and severe outcomes, advise the student of their right to appeal to the Student Appeals Committee, including grounds, the 20 working day timeframe, and the effect of an appeal on any penalty;
  8. state that the penalty does not take effect until:
    1. the time for lodging an appeal has expired without an appeal being lodged; or
    2. where an appeal has been lodged, the appeal has been finally determined;
  9. state the date on which any confidentiality obligation imposed on the student in connection with the matter ends and confirm the student is released from that obligation on that date;
  10. for higher education students, advise that they may escalate to the National Student Ombudsman, a free, independent, trauma-informed service;
  11. for VET students, advise that they may escalate the Northern Territory Ombudsman;
  12. for international students, advise that a finding resulting in suspension or expulsion will be reported to the Department of Home Affairs and may affect their student visa, and that any deferment or termination of enrolment will be implemented under National Code of Practice for Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students 2018 Standards 9 and 10; and
  13. advise the student of the support services available to them, including the CDU Student Council, Student Counselling, First Nations Student Support, International Student Support, Access and Inclusion, and, where the matter involves gender-based violence, Safer Communities.

(108) On conclusion of the matter, the SCCMU notifies, in writing, within 5 working days of the decision notice being issued to the student: 

  1. the referring Unit Coordinator, Trainer/Assessor, or other complainant of the outcome of the matter, including any finding, the classification, and the assessment action to be implemented; and 
  2. the affected person(s) of the outcome of the matter, including any finding, the classification, and any element of the penalty relevant to their safety or ongoing interaction with the student (for example, a no-contact condition, facility restriction, suspension, exclusion, or expulsion and its duration).
  3. The specific penalty and the student’s personal circumstances are not disclosed. Gender-based violence matters follow the notification regime under the Gender-based Violence Response Procedure, including notification timeframes.

(109) The Unit Coordinator or Trainer/Assessor implements any assessment-result direction in the decision notice within 5 working days of receipt, including updating the grade, issuing an NYC determination, or arranging reassessment. This obligation applies even where the unit has concluded.

(110) Where the matter has involved coordination with Safer Communities, the well-being or fitness-to-study process, the Behavioural Threat Management Group, or another internal University process, SCCMU notifies the coordinating unit of the outcome, to the extent necessary for the coordinating unit's continuing role with the student or the complainant.

Part C - Safety, fraud, and external referral (Pathway C)

(111) Pathway C runs alongside Pathway B; it does not replace it. For academic misconduct, Pathway C is activated when circumstances beyond the academic integrity process are disclosed, such as when a student is being exploited, coerced, or blackmailed; when the conduct may constitute fraud or corruption; or when an external regulatory referral is required.

(112) At all stages of the Pathway B process, students are informed that if they are being pressured, coerced, threatened, or blackmailed in connection with their academic misconduct, the University wants to know and can help. Disclosures about safety or well-being are not treated as admissions for Pathway B purposes and are managed separately.

Pathway C triggers

(113) Pathway C is activated where any of the following circumstances are present or where the Investigator has reasonable grounds to believe that:

  1. the conduct constitutes, or may constitute, an offence under Australian law for which referral to law enforcement is warranted;
  2. the conduct involves bribery of staff, falsification of statutory documents, theft of examination materials involving staff, or other conduct that may constitute corrupt conduct or improper conduct under the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Act 2017 (NT);
  3. the conduct involves a child or young person and engages mandatory reporting obligations under the Care and Protection of Children Act 2007 (NT);
  4. the conduct involves online behaviour captured by the Online Safety Act 2021 (Cth), including the Adult Cyber Abuse Scheme, the Image-Based Abuse Scheme, or the Cyberbullying Scheme;
  5. the conduct may constitute unlawful discrimination, harassment, or vilification under applicable anti-discrimination law (the Anti-Discrimination Act 1992 (NT), the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW), the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (SA), or anti-discrimination acts of the Commonwealth or other applicable jurisdictions);
  6. the conduct affects the fitness to practise of a student in a regulated profession, including engagement of obligations to AHPRA, the Teacher Registration Board, or another professional regulator;
  7. the student presents a risk of harm to themselves or others that warrants referral to the wellbeing or fitness-to-study process, the Behavioural Threat Management Group (when established), or an external mental health service;
  8. the matter affects a student's enrolment on an Australian student visa and Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 or National Code of Practice for Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students 2018 reporting obligations are engaged;
  9. the matter requires reporting to TEQSA or ASQA under their respective regulatory frameworks;
  10. the matter requires reporting to a partner organisation, including a placement host, an employer, or another education provider, where the conduct has affected that organisation or its members;
  11. the student is being coerced into academic misconduct by a third party, including by another student;
  12. the student is blackmailed or extorted by a person who provided or offered academic work, including a commercial academic cheating service;
  13. the student is threatened with physical harm or reputational damage; or
  14. the student is subject to identity theft or cybersecurity compromise arising from engagement with a commercial academic cheating service.

Student safety and wellbeing

(114) Where Pathway C is activated, SCCMU, through a staff member who is not the Investigator, immediately:

  1. advises the student that, once the University is aware, the cheating service or third party loses significant power to intimidate;
  2. notifies the SCCMU Manager;
  3. refers the student to Student Counselling and other relevant support services;
  4. contacts Digital Technology Solutions where a cybersecurity compromise is suspected; and
  5. recommends consideration of reissuing login credentials where they may have been compromised.

(115) Where a finding of contract cheating is made under Pathway B, and the student discloses the identity or details of a commercial cheating service, SCCMU must:

  1. document the disclosure in the case management system;
  2. advise the student that the disclosure assists TEQSA’s enforcement role under sections 114A and 114B of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 (Cth) and is consistent with the student’s interests; and
  3. provide the information to TEQSA within 30 working days of conclusion of the Pathway B process, through the Provost as the University’s external reporting signatory. Intelligence sharing is not a material change notification. Where a student misconduct matter managed under this procedure amounts to a material change, it must be separately notified to regulators under the Material Change Procedure.

Cybersecurity

(116) Where there is evidence or reasonable suspicion that a student’s University login credentials have been disclosed, shared, or otherwise compromised, including in circumstances connected to suspected contract cheating, where a third party may have used the credentials both to submit an assessment item and to extract assessment materials, learning resources, or other information from the University’s systems, the SCCMU notifies the Digital Technology Solutions (DTS). DTS assesses whether:

  1. credential reissue is required;
  2. any data exfiltration may have occurred; and
  3. whether any response is required under the University’s information security and data breach frameworks.

Police and law-enforcement referral

(117) Where the conduct constitutes, or may constitute, a criminal offence, SCCMU may refer the matter to the police. Decision-making on police referral is informed by:

  1. the wishes of the complainant or affected person, where there is one and where the matter is one in which the complainant's preference is a relevant consideration (for example, sexual misconduct, harassment, or stalking matters);
  2. the seriousness of the conduct and the public interest in law-enforcement involvement;
  3. any statutory obligation to report (for example, child safety, threats of mass violence);
  4. the University's obligations under the Gender-based Violence Response Procedure and the National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence where the conduct involves gender-based violence; and
  5. the risk to other members of the University community of non-referral.

eSafety Commissioner referral

(118) Where conduct involves online behaviour captured by the Online Safety Act 2021 (Cth), SCCMU may assist the complainant or affected person to make a report to the eSafety Commissioner. The eSafety Commissioner has powers to issue removal notices, end-user notices, and other orders that can address the online conduct at speed, independently of the disciplinary outcome.

Mandatory reporting obligations

(119) All University staff are Public Officers under the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Act 2017 (NT) and carry personal mandatory reporting obligations. Compliance with this procedure does not discharge a staff member's individual obligation. Where a staff member forms a reasonable suspicion of corrupt conduct or improper conduct as defined under the ICAC Act, the staff member must make a report to a CDU Disclosure Officer or directly to the ICAC in accordance with the Whistleblower Reporting (Improper Conduct) Procedure and must not rely solely on the internal misconduct process.

(120) Activation of the ICAC pathway does not automatically suspend the Pathway B investigation. The SCCMU Manager, in consultation with the Vice-President Governance and University Secretary, determines whether the internal investigation should continue, be suspended, or be paused pending guidance from the ICAC Commissioner. The student is notified in writing of any suspension.

(121) CDU operates across multiple Australian jurisdictions. Where a Pathway C referral may engage laws of a jurisdiction other than the Northern Territory, staff must seek guidance from the Vice-President Governance and University Secretary before making any external referral.

(122) Where the conduct involves a child or young person, mandatory reporting obligations under the Care and Protection of Children Act 2007 (NT) may apply. SCCMU staff with mandatory reporting obligations comply with those obligations regardless of the internal misconduct process.

(123) Where the conduct creates, or may create, a risk to the health or safety of staff or visitors at a CDU workplace, obligations under the Work Health and Safety (National Uniform Legislation) Act 2011 NT may apply. SCCMU coordinates with the relevant University officer for the management of WHS-relevant matters.

(124) Where the disciplinary outcome involves suspension or termination of enrolment of an international student on a student visa, the matter is reported to the Department of Education in accordance with the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 (Cth) and the National Code of Practice for Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students 2018.

Anti-discrimination referral

(125) Where the conduct may constitute unlawful discrimination, harassment, or victimisation under applicable anti-discrimination law, the complainant is informed of the option of making a complaint to the anti-discrimination agency in the jurisdiction in which the conduct occurred, such as the Northern Territory Anti-Discrimination Commission, Anti-Discrimination NSW, or the South Australian Equal Opportunity Commission, and to the Australian Human Rights Commission. The University's internal process and an external complaint may proceed in parallel.

Concurrent fitness-to-study and Behavioural Threat Management Group

(126) SCCMU may refer a student to the University's wellbeing or fitness-to-study process where the conduct or its underlying circumstances suggest a risk of harm to the student or to others that would benefit from a wellbeing-focused, non-disciplinary response. The wellbeing or fitness-to-study process runs in parallel with proceedings under this procedure and does not displace them. The disciplinary track addresses the conduct; the wellbeing track addresses the risk and support.

(127) Where the University has established a Behavioural Threat Management Group (BTMG), SCCMU may refer matters to the BTMG for risk assessment and case coordination in accordance with the BTMG's terms of reference. BTMG referral does not displace the disciplinary track. The BTMG is a risk-assessment body and is not a disciplinary decision-maker.

(128) Activation of a fitness-to-study, BTMG, complaint, gender-based violence, eSafety, criminal, or external regulatory process does not preclude or stay misconduct proceedings under this procedure. The disciplinary process and the parallel process operate independently. SCCMU coordinates with the owner of any parallel process to ensure consistency in interim measures, complainant communication, and outcome notification.

External regulatory referral

(129) Follow the Material Change Procedure where external regulatory reporting is required, including to TEQSA, ASQA, the Department of Education, a professional regulator, or any other relevant authority.

Effect on penalty determination

(130) A student’s cooperation with a Pathway C external referral or process, including by providing information, giving a statement to an external authority, or assisting in the investigation of conduct affecting third parties, may be a mitigating factor in penalty determination under the Student Misconduct Penalty and Educative Response Schedule. The decision-maker must take cooperation into account and record in the decision notice whether and how it was considered.

Part D - Review and appeal

Intra-procedural review of minor decisions

(131) A student who receives a decision classified as minor, whether determined on the standard track or the expedited minor track, may request intra-procedural review by an independent Tier 2 decision-maker.

(132) The student may seek review on one or more of:

  1. material procedural error that affected or could have affected the outcome;
  2. material error of fact;
  3. disproportionate penalty; or
  4. fresh evidence not reasonably available at the time of the original decision that could materially affect the outcome.

(133) The review must be lodged in writing with SCCMU, for referral to the reviewing Tier 2 decision-maker, within 10 working days of the decision notice. SCCMU refers the review request to a Reviewing Tier 2 decision-maker who has had no prior decision-making involvement in the matter.

(134) On receipt of a request for review, the reviewing Tier 2 decision-maker may grant a stay of the penalty, the educative component requirement, and any assessment result implications pending the outcome of the review.

(135) The reviewing Tier 2 decision-maker conducts an administrative, desktop review, unless the reviewing Tier 2 decision-maker determines that a brief meeting is necessary. The student is entitled to a support person at any meeting. The review will consider:

  1. the investigation brief or the expedited-track allegation notice;
  2. student response to the brief or notice (as applicable);
  3. the decision;
  4. the student's review request and submissions; and
  5. any further submissions sought from SCCMU.

(136) The reviewing Tier 2 decision-maker may:

  1. confirm the original decision;
  2. vary the original decision, provided any varied penalty is not more severe than the original;
  3. set aside the original decision and dismiss the matter; or
  4. remit the matter for fresh determination by the SCCMU Manager, with directions, including as to whether the fresh determination proceeds on either the expedited minor track or the standard track.

(137) The review decision must be made within 15 working days of receipt of a complete review request, unless the reviewing Tier 2 decision-maker notifies the student, in writing and with reasons, of an extension. A review under this part is final, with no further internal review or appeal. External avenues remain available.

(138) The student must be provided with written reasons for the reviewer’s decision. Where there is a complainant or affected person who has been notified of the original outcome, the complainant or affected person is notified in writing of the review outcome within 5 working days.

(139) A student who remains dissatisfied after intra-procedural review may escalate to an appropriate external body. 

Appeal of serious and severe decisions

(140) A student who receives a decision classified as serious or severe, whether by a Tier 2 decision-maker or the Student Misconduct Panel, may appeal the finding or the penalty (or both) to the Student Appeals Committee.

(141) The grounds of appeal are:

  1. procedural unfairness in the conduct of the matter;
  2. new evidence of significance that was not reasonably available at the time of the decision;
  3. the evidence did not reasonably support an adverse finding on a balance of probabilities; or
  4. that the penalty imposed was disproportionate to the conduct found.

(142) An appeal to the Student Appeals Committee must be lodged within 20 working days of the date of the notice of decision.

(143) A penalty imposed under this procedure does not take effect until:

  1. the time for lodging an appeal has expired without an appeal being lodged; or
  2. where an appeal has been lodged, the appeal has been finalised.

(144) For VET students, the decision-maker on appeal must be independent of the original decision-maker or assessor and the Investigator, consistent with the ASQA Practice Guide - Feedback, Complaints and Appeals. VET appeals must be resolved within 60 calendar days of receipt. Where more time is required, the student must be notified in writing with reasons provided.

(145) Where the decision affects the enrolment of a student on a student visa, the University must comply with its obligations under the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 and National Code of Practice for Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students 2018 obligations, including providing access to an internal appeal before any provider-initiated suspension or cancellation takes effect, except where health or safety requires immediate action.

(146) Notification to a complainant or affected person will occur within 5 working days of any appeal lodged by the student, and of the outcome of that appeal.

(147) The constitution, powers, and procedures of the Student Appeals Committee are set out in the Student Appeals Committee Terms of Reference.

(148) A student who remains dissatisfied after a Student Appeals Committee process may escalate to an appropriate external body.

Complainant complaint about the misconduct process

(149) A complainant or affected person who has a complaint about the conduct of the misconduct process itself may lodge that complaint under the Complaints Policy - Students. A complaint about the conduct of the misconduct process is separate from any review or appeal lodged by the student, and from any avenue of external complaint about the substantive outcome of the matter.

External avenues for appeal

(150) A respondent student, complainant, or affected person may pursue external avenues for appeal, including:

  1. the National Student Ombudsman, for higher education students; and
  2. the Northern Territory Ombudsman, for vocational education and training students.

Part E - Confidentiality, reporting, and record-keeping

Confidentiality

(151) The University's approach to confidentiality in all types of misconduct matters is designed to protect the integrity of the process and the privacy of those involved, while preserving each person's right to seek support and to discuss their own experience. The approach applies to the student who is the subject of an allegation, the complainant or affected person, witnesses, and other participants.

(152) A student who is involved in a misconduct matter, whether as a respondent, complainant, witness, or other participant, may, at any time and without seeking the University's permission, discuss their own experience with:

  1. family members, friends, and other personal supports of their choosing;
  2. health professionals, including counsellors, medical practitioners, and mental health practitioners, whether internal or external to the University;
  3. lawyers and other legal advisers;
  4. student advocates, including the CDU Student Council;
  5. the National Student Ombudsman, the Northern Territory Ombudsman, police, the eSafety Commissioner, the Northern Territory Anti-Discrimination Commission, the Australian Human Rights Commission, and other government agencies;
  6. 1800 RESPECT, the Sexual Assault Referral Centre (SARC), and other specialist support services; and
  7. any trusted adviser, including academic staff, where the discussion is for the purpose of seeking support.

(153) Any confidentiality obligation imposed on a student in connection with a misconduct matter ends on the conclusion of the matter, including the conclusion of any review or appeal. The decision notice must state the date on which confidentiality obligations end and confirm that the student is released from those obligations and is free to discuss what occurred during the process.

(154) SCCMU, decision-makers, Safer Communities, and other University staff may disclose information only to persons with a need to know for investigation, decision-making, review, support, or implementation purposes, or where disclosure is required by law or necessary to protect safety. The Privacy and Confidentiality Policy outlines the University’s approach to protecting personal privacy and information, including situations where information may be disclosed.

(155) Breach of confidentiality by a participant may itself constitute general misconduct under this procedure.

Misconduct Registers

(156) SCCMU maintains a confidential General Misconduct Register and Academic Misconduct Register in the University's case management system. For every Pathway A outcome and Pathway B finding (minor, serious, or severe), the Register records:

  1. the student's name, student number, and course;
  2. the date and nature of the conduct;
  3. the pathway, track (expedited or standard for minor matters), and classification;
  4. the decision and any penalty imposed;
  5. evidence of completion of the educative component;
  6. the outcome of any review or appeal; and
  7. linkages to coordinated processes, including warm-handover matters under the Gender-based Violence Response Procedure, fitness-to-study referrals, and external referrals.

(157) The Register is accessible only to authorised staff with a direct need to know. Prior findings and Pathway A records are accessible to SCCMU and decision-makers for classification and penalty determination. Where a prior Pathway A record is relied upon to determine a current matter, the student must be notified.

(158) For matters that arrived via warm handover, records are coordinated between SCCMU and Safer Communities in accordance with the operational protocol between the two units, with appropriate separation between the support-track records held by Safer Communities and the investigation-track records held by SCCMU.

Annual report

(159) SCCMU, through the Director Student Engagement, prepares an annual report to the Vice-Chancellor's Advisory Committee, through the Provost, for general misconduct, and to the Academic Board, through the Learning and Teaching Committee, for academic misconduct, on the operation of this procedure. The report contains:

  1. the number of referrals received, by source, faculty (where applicable), delivery mode, and student cohort;
  2. the number of Pathway A outcomes, Pathway B findings (by classification and by track for minor matters), and Pathway C activations;
  3. findings by misconduct type and penalty imposed, de-identified;
  4. the number of matters that proceeded to intra-procedural review or appeal, and their outcomes;
  5. the operation of the Student Misconduct Panel, including matters referred and their status;
  6. end-to-end resolution performance against the relevant targets;
  7. the number of matters arriving via the warm handover and the operational performance of the coordination with Safer Communities;
  8. the number of authorised officer summary directions reported;
  9. any impacts on student visa or Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 compliance;
  10. trend analysis identifying patterns across faculties, unit and course types, delivery modes, conduct and breach types, and referral sources;
  11. root causes, including assessment design concerns, and actions taken or proposed; and
  12. systemic issues identified for action.

(160) The Vice-Chancellor submits an annual report to University Council on the operation of the student misconduct framework. Data prepared by SCCMU for the reports to the Vice-Chancellor’s Advisory Committee and Academic Board may be drawn on for the Vice-Chancellor's report.

(161) Consistent with the TEQSA Statement of Regulatory Expectations (October 2025) and the National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence, the University publishes annual misconduct data in a de-identified, aggregated form, aligned with the University's annual reporting cycle.

(162) SCCMU conducts closed-case reviews at least annually to assess investigation quality, consistency of findings and penalties, and procedural compliance. Findings are reported to the SCCMU Manager and, where systemic issues are identified, to the Provost, and are included in the annual report.

Record retention

(163) Confidential records are retained and disposed of in accordance with the Records and Information Management Policy and Procedure and applicable Retention and Disposal Schedules.

Top of Page

Section 5 - Non-compliance

(164) Non-compliance with governance documents is considered a breach of the Code of Conduct - Employees or the Code of Conduct - Students, as applicable, and is treated seriously by the University. Reports of concerns about non-compliance will be managed in accordance with the applicable disciplinary procedures outlined in the Charles Darwin University and Union Enterprise Agreement 2025 and the Code of Conduct - Students.

(165) Complaints may be raised in accordance with the Complaints and Grievance Policy and Procedure - Employees and Complaints Policy - Students.

(166) All staff members have an individual responsibility to raise any suspicion, allegation or report of fraud or corruption in accordance with the Fraud and Corruption Control Policy and Whistleblower Reporting (Improper Conduct) Procedure.