A decision of the University's Examinations Disciplinary Board which had found a psychology student guilty of plagiarism has been annulled by the Civil Court on the basis that the decision was contrary to the rules of natural justice.

Stephanie Dalli had filed an application against the University Rector and against Dr Valerie Sollars, Dr Elena Tanti Burlo', the University Rector and the Registrar, the Disciplnary Board within the Faculty of Education and the Examinations Disciplinary Board.

She told the court that she was a psychology student within the Faculty of Education. In the final semester of her final year she had to complete a compulsory credit on "Symposia in Psychology" and together with other students, including Roderick Spiteri, had to present three assignments.

Mr Spiteri had informed Dr Tanti Burlo' (the Head of the Psychology Department) and Dr Greta Darmanin Kissaun that the work prepared by Ms Dalli and some other students in the group was plagiarised. Ms Dalli was then informed by the Faculty secretary, by telephone, that an informal meeting was to be held with the Faculty lecturers. However, when she attended she discovered that the meeting was with the Disciplinary Board within the Faculty of Education to be questioned about the alleged plagiarism.

The Board concluded that Ms Dalli and two other students were guilty of plagiarism and that they were deemed to have failed their assignment.

The Board's recommendation was forwarded to the University Examinations Disciplinary Board which, in turn and without hearing Ms Dalli's version of events, confirmed it.

Mr Justice Raymond Pace pointed out that the Disciplinary Board in the Faculty of Education was an ad hoc body and was not constituted or regulated by any law The University Examinations Discipinary Board was however composed by law. It resulted that neither Ms Dalli nor the other studentshad been summoned to appear before the Examinations Disciplinary Board. Nor were they informed of the charges against them.

The court added that the students had not been given the opportunty to defend themselves. The Examinations Disciplinary Board, said the court, had merely rested on the recommendations of the Faculty Disciplinary Board which, in turn, had not informed Ms Dalli of the charges against her.

The court concluded that the decision of the Examinations Disciplinary Board was unreasonable and that its proceedings constituted an abuse of administrative power and a breach of the rules of natural justice. The decision was therefore declared to be null and void. The court however declined to award Ms Dalli any damages on the grounds that she had not produced any evidence of material damages sustained. The court added that the only person who ought to have been sued in this case was the University Rector as he was the legal representative of the University.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.