Court annuls university plagiarism ruling

A decision of the university’s Examinations Disciplinary Board which had found a psychology student guilty of plagiarism was annulled by a court on the basis that the decision was contrary to the rules of natural justice.

The court heard that in the final semester of her final year, Stephanie Dalli had to complete a compulsory credit on “Symposia in Psychology” and had to present three assignments together with other students. One of those students, Roderick Spiteri, informed Elena Tanti Burlo’, head of the Psychology Department, that the work prepared by Ms Dalli and some other students in the group had been plagiarised.

Ms Dalli told the court she was then informed by the faculty secretary, by telephone, that an informal meeting was to be held with the faculty lecturers. But 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 deemed them to have failed their assignment.

This was in turn confirmed by the University Examinations Disciplinary Board, but without hearing Ms Dalli, she complained.

Mr Justice Raymond C. Pace, sitting in the First Hall of the Civil Court, pointed out that the faculty’s disciplinary board was an ad hoc body and was not constituted or regulated by any law. The University Exams Disciplinary Board was however composed by law.

Still, the three students had not been given the opportunity to defend themselves, the court said. The latter board had merely rested on the recommendations of the faculty disciplinary board which had not informed Ms Dalli of the charges against her.

The court declared the decision null and void because it was unreasonable and the proceedings constituted an abuse of administrative power as well as a breach of the rules of natural justice.