Skip to content
  • info@equracollege.org.uk
  • Twickenham, United Kingdom
  • How to Apply
  • Fees & Funding
  • Visit/ Open day
REGISTER NOW

Academic Misconduct Procedure

Equra College London
Version: 1.0
Approved by: Governing Body / Academic Board (as applicable)
Effective from: 20/01/2026
Review date: 15/01/2026 (annual review)
Owner: Quality Lead / Academic Integrity Lead

1. Purpose

Equra College London (“Equra”) is committed to academic integrity and fair assessment. This procedure sets out how Equra:

  • Prevents and educates students about academic misconduct;
  • Investigates suspected academic misconduct fairly and consistently;
  • Makes decisions based on evidence and in line with natural justice; and
  • Applies proportionate outcomes and provides learning support where appropriate.

2. Scope

This procedure applies to all students on:

  • Higher Education (HE) pathways;
  • Diplomas and short courses (where assessment is required);
  • CPD programmes (where assessment/certification applies),

and covers all assessed work including written assignments, presentations, projects, exams, online tests, portfolios, and any other assessment format.

3. Definitions (examples)

Academic misconduct includes (but is not limited to):

  • Plagiarism: presenting others’ work/ideas as your own without proper acknowledgement.
  • Collusion: unauthorised collaboration producing work submitted as individual.
  • Contract cheating: submitting work produced by a third party (paid or unpaid).
  • Impersonation: having someone else complete an assessment or taking an exam on your behalf.
  • Unfair means in examinations/tests: unauthorised materials, devices, communication, or access to questions.
  • Fabrication/falsification: making up data, references, evidence, or altering results.
  • Improper use of AI tools: using AI in ways that breach assessment instructions, failing to declare use where required, or presenting AI-generated output as one’s own work.
  • Re-submission/self-plagiarism: re-using your previously submitted work without permission/appropriate acknowledgement.

Note: Equra will publish assessment-specific rules (including any AI declarations) for each module/course.

4. Principles

Equra will handle suspected misconduct under these principles:

  • Fairness and impartiality: decisions made by staff not materially involved in teaching/grading where possible.
  • Evidence-based: decisions based on clear evidence, not assumptions.
  • Proportionality: outcomes match severity and intent.
  • Educational approach: support and guidance where misconduct is minor/unintentional.
  • Right to respond: students have the opportunity to explain and provide evidence.
  • Accessibility: reasonable adjustments available for disability/health needs.
  • Confidentiality: information handled on a need-to-know basis.

5. Prevention and student guidance

Equra will support academic integrity through:

  • Induction guidance and academic writing support;
  • Clear assessment briefs and referencing expectations;
  • Skills workshops and study support resources;
  • Clear instructions regarding permitted/prohibited AI use and any declaration requirements.

Students are expected to:

  • Keep drafts and evidence of their work process;
  • Use correct referencing;
  • Follow assessment instructions precisely.

6. Procedure stages

Stage 1: Identification and Preliminary Review

A concern may be raised by:

  • A marker/tutor;
  • Internal moderator;
  • Invigilator (for exams);
  • Quality/academic integrity staff.

The Preliminary Reviewer (normally the Module Leader/Academic Integrity Lead or nominee) will:

  • Consider the assessment brief and instructions;
  • Review the work, similarity reports (if used), and any relevant evidence;
  • Decide whether:
    1. No case to answer (close and record), or
    2. Minor concern suitable for informal resolution (Stage 2), or
    3. Suspected misconduct requiring formal investigation (Stage 3).

Equra will normally inform the student in writing if proceeding to Stage 2 or Stage 3.

Stage 2: Minor Concern (Educational Resolution)

Stage 2 may be used where the issue appears minor and/or unintentional (e.g., poor referencing) and does not indicate deliberate deception.

Equra may:

  • Provide academic integrity guidance and require a learning task (e.g., referencing workshop); and/or
  • Allow resubmission with a capped mark (where rules permit); and/or
  • Apply a minor academic penalty consistent with assessment regulations.

The student will be informed in writing of:

  • The concern;
  • The outcome and any required actions;
  • Any impact on marks;
  • The right to request escalation to Stage 3 if they dispute the finding.

Timeframe: Equra aims to conclude Stage 2 within 10 working days of notifying the student.

Stage 3: Formal Investigation

Where Stage 3 applies, Equra will issue a Formal Allegation Notice to the student including:

  • The allegation type(s);
  • The assessment details and submission date;
  • The evidence summary (e.g., similarity indicators, marker concerns, exam incident report);
  • The process and timescales;
  • The student’s right to respond and submit evidence;
  • Whether any interim measures apply (rare; only where necessary).

Student response
The student will normally have 7 working days to:

  • Provide a written response; and
  • Submit supporting evidence (drafts, notes, version history, data files, references, screenshots, etc.).

Equra may invite the student to an investigation meeting (online/in person). Notes will be taken.

Investigation outcome decision
The Investigating Officer (or Academic Integrity Lead) will decide whether:

  • No misconduct is found (case dismissed); or
  • Misconduct occurred and should proceed to a hearing (Stage 4); or
  • Misconduct occurred and can be resolved without a hearing (only where permitted and proportionate).

Timeframe: Equra aims to complete Stage 3 within 15 working days of the student’s response deadline, subject to complexity.

Stage 4: Academic Misconduct Hearing (Panel)

A hearing will normally be used for more serious or disputed cases.

Panel composition (recommended minimum)

  • Chair (independent, trained)
  • Academic member (not directly involved in teaching/marking the assessment)
  • Quality/registry representative (or nominee)
  • Note-taker

Notice of hearing
Equra will provide at least 7 working days’ notice of:

  • Date/time (and format)
  • Panel members
  • Papers/evidence to be considered
  • Process
  • Student’s right to be accompanied (friend/adviser, non-legal)

Hearing process (summary)

  • Chair explains procedure and confirms the allegation(s)
  • Evidence presented (briefly)
  • Student presents response and evidence
  • Panel questions for clarity
  • Panel deliberates in private
  • Decision recorded with reasons

Hearing outcome letter
Issued normally within 10 working days, confirming:

  • Decision (upheld/not upheld/partly upheld)
  • Reasons
  • Outcome/penalty (if any)
  • Any required actions/support
  • Right to appeal under the Consolidated Student Appeals Procedure (Part B) and deadline.

7. Outcomes and penalties (indicative framework)

Equra will apply proportionate outcomes considering:

  • Severity and extent
  • Intent (deliberate vs poor practice)
  • Level of study and prior integrity training
  • Whether it is a first or repeated offence
  • Impact on assessment integrity

Indicative outcomes may include:

  • Educational warning and mandatory integrity training
  • Mark reduction or capped mark
  • Requirement to resubmit / reassessment (where permitted)
  • Fail for the assessment component
  • Fail for the module/unit
  • Suspension or withdrawal (only for serious/repeated offences)

Equra will publish assessment regulations clarifying which outcomes are available for each programme type.

8. Use of AI tools (Academic Integrity and AI)

Equra recognises that digital tools may support learning. However:

  • Students must comply with each assessment’s instructions on permitted AI use.
  • Where declarations are required, students must declare AI assistance accurately.
  • Presenting AI-generated content as one’s own work, where not permitted, may be treated as academic misconduct.

Equra will maintain an AI Policy and assessment-level guidance to ensure clarity.

9. Reasonable adjustments and accessibility

Equra will provide reasonable adjustments for students with disability/health needs throughout this process, including:

  • Accessible formats
  • Extended time to respond where justified
  • Remote attendance options
  • Breaks during meetings/hearings

Requests should be made as early as possible.

10. Confidentiality and records

Equra will:

  • Handle all cases confidentially on a need-to-know basis;
  • Keep records securely in line with a retention schedule;
  • Process personal data in line with Equra’s Privacy Notice.

11. Student conduct during the process

Equra expects respectful conduct. Abusive or threatening behaviour may lead to restrictions on communication and/or separate disciplinary action, without preventing the integrity process from concluding.

12. Appeal

Students may appeal the outcome of an Academic Misconduct Hearing under:
Consolidated Student Appeals Procedure — Part B
Deadline: normally 10 working days from the outcome letter.

Appendix B — Timescale targets (summary)

  • Acknowledge formal allegation: within 3 working days
  • Student response period: 7 working days
  • Investigation completion target: 15 working days after response deadline
  • Hearing notice: 7 working days minimum
  • Hearing outcome letter: within 10 working days