Student academic misconduct – outcomes and penalties

Common potential outcomes in an academic misconduct case can range from minor penalties to more severe academic consequences, depending on the seriousness of the violation and the evidence presented. Typical outcomes include:

  • No finding of academic misconduct: The investigation process revealed no academic misconduct occurred, so your grade will no longer be withheld and no official finding will be recorded on your student record.
  • Formal warning: This is often the least severe penalty and serves as a caution against future misconduct.
  • Reduced grades: Marks for the assessment item might be lowered by a percentage.
  • Resubmission: You may be asked to redo the assessment or take a supplementary assessment.
  • Failing grade: You could receive a failing grade for the assessment or the entire course.
  • Suspension: Temporary removal from the institution for a specific period.
  • Expulsion or exclusion: Permanent removal from the institution.

Understanding potential outcomes, including academic penalties

In academic misconduct cases, the potential outcomes can vary widely based on the severity of the academic misconduct and the evidence available. For example, inadvertent plagiarism in your first year could result in a warning, whereas repeated contract cheating can lead to expulsion.

It is essential to understand that institutions base their decisions on the balance of probabilities, rather than beyond a reasonable doubt. This means your institution does not need to prove with 100% certainty that you have engaged in academic misconduct. They simply need to demonstrate based on the available evidence that it's likely that misconduct occurred and as such the institution can proceed to impose penalties.

In cases where the misconduct is deemed particularly severe, you might face suspension or expulsion. Suspension involves being temporarily barred from attending classes, while expulsion means permanent removal from the institution.  If you are an international student on a Student Visa, this may lead to further migration-related consequences that affect your ability to remain in Australia.

Alert icon

Remember

It's crucial for you to engage with the process, present any mitigating evidence, and understand the potential consequences fully. Always check with your institution, as they will typically provide resources and support to help you navigate the process and understand your rights and responsibilities.


 

Banner with the text: Case studies

Case study 1: No penalty and warning

Student

Anisha, a first-year student in the Arts Faculty.

Misconduct

Unintentional plagiarism.

Process

Anisha was notified of the plagiarism allegations after submitting her first major paper. She was confused and distressed but decided to engage fully with the academic misconduct process. Anisha promptly responded to the notification and attended the formal interview, bringing with her the notes and drafts she had used for her assessment. During the investigation, she explained that the plagiarism resulted from a misunderstanding of citation rules rather than an intention to deceive. She provided evidence of her good faith efforts to cite sources correctly and expressed a willingness to learn.

Outcome

Considering her cooperation, transparency and genuine misunderstanding, the decision was made to issue no penalty and a warning. Anisha was given additional resources and guidance on proper citation practices, so she could avoid similar issues in the future.

Case study 2: Severe penalty for dishonesty

Student

Bob, a third-year student in the Business School.

Misconduct

Engaging an overseas contract cheating agency to complete his assignment for him.

Process

Bob was caught submitting an assignment that was completed by an overseas contract cheating agency. When notified of the allegations, he denied any wrongdoing. During the formal investigation, he presented false evidence and attempted to discredit the investigators. The investigation revealed inconsistencies in his statements and evidence. Additional scrutiny of his past work and the technical data within his documents revealed a pattern of similar behaviour.

Outcome

Due to Bob's attempts to deceive the investigation and his previous academic misconduct, the decision was proportionate to the behaviour. He was suspended for one academic year and received a fail grade for the course.

Case study 3: Proportionate penalty for engagement

Student

Mohammed, a second-year engineering student.

Misconduct

Collusion in a group project.

Process

Mohammed and his assigned group project members were accused of colluding on a project by sharing work that was supposed to be completed individually. All students were interviewed separately. Upon notification, Mohammed chose to engage with the process sincerely. He attended the investigation, provided his own contributions to the project and explained how the misunderstanding occurred. Mohammed admitted that he and his group members did not fully understand the boundaries of collaboration and had inadvertently crossed them. He demonstrated a willingness to take responsibility and learn from the experience.

Outcome

The decision was to impose a mark reduction for the project, reflecting the seriousness of the academic misconduct but also recognising Mohammed’s honesty and cooperation. Group members who did not engage with the process received a more substantial mark reduction.

Last updated:

Related links