The High Court has quashed Athlone Institute of Technology’s decision that a final-year student breached examination regulations, finding that the process denied her fair procedures.
Ms Justice Dunne ruled on 14 June 2013 that the institute’s decision was amenable to judicial review because it concerned a disciplinary function. She granted an order of certiorari quashing the acting Registrar’s determination, notified to the student on 17 April. The court did not decide what should happen next and said it would hear further submissions on whether the matter should be remitted.
The case arose from a Financial Management exam on 13 December 2012. The student, Shuting Zhang, had notes and a mobile phone beneath her desk. She said she had not correctly heard the invigilator’s instruction to leave bags and notes at the top of the hall, amid confusion caused by the late start and her limited English. The invigilator alleged a breach of the examination regulations.
An initial finding against Zhang was set aside after her solicitors objected that the Academic Registrar who conducted the inquiry was the husband of the invigilator who made the allegation. The institute then arranged a new process led by Dr Dermot Douglas, described in the judgment as independent of the institute.
Before the 12 April meeting, the institute’s solicitors told Zhang’s representatives that it was to determine whether there was a prima facie case to answer, and that a further hearing with witnesses available for cross-examination might follow. The judge said the regulations contemplated a two-stage process: first, consideration of whether a prima facie case existed; then, if it did, a formal meeting or, in specified circumstances, a committee of inquiry.
At the meeting, Douglas said his role was to decide whether there was a case to answer. Zhang attended with her solicitor and an interpreter. The solicitor reserved his position on cross-examining the invigilator, saying the meeting was not a hearing. However, Douglas later issued a final decision finding that Zhang had brought unauthorised material into the exam and imposing a penalty. He said the evidence did not establish that she had cheated by using the material.
Justice Dunne found that Zhang and her solicitor could not have anticipated a final finding and penalty from a meeting presented as preliminary. She also noted that the solicitor had not had the promised opportunity to cross-examine the invigilator, and that Douglas had relied to some extent on information from other potential witnesses whom Zhang had no opportunity to challenge. The court concluded that the process breached the institute’s regulations and its assurances about the meeting.