1.1     A candidate shall have the right to appeal to the Research Degree Appeals Committee against a recommendation,

made by formally appointed examiners and endorsed by a School board, not to award a postgraduate research degree and not to allow re-submission for a doctorate or a master's degree.  This includes provision for appeal against a recommendation that a doctorate be not awarded but that the candidate by permitted to apply for a master's degree.  In addition, a candidate may appeal against a decision not to upgrade their candidacy from a master's to a doctoral programme.  An appeal may be based upon one or more of the following grounds:

1.1.1  that there existed circumstances affecting the candidate's performance of which the examiners

(or the assessors, in the case of an upgrade) had not been made aware when their decision was taken;

1.1.2  that there were procedural irregularies in the conduct of the examination, or that the upgrading meeting

(including administrative error), of such a nature as to cause reasonable doubt whether the result might have been different had they not occured;

1.1.3  that there was evidence of prejudice or of bias or of inadequate assessment on the part of one or more of the

examiners (or the assessors, in the case of an upgrade);

1.1.4  that the supervision of the candidate was unsatisfactory to the point that his/her performance was seriously

affected;

1.1.5  that in reaching their decision the examiners (or the assessors, in the case of an upgrade) had erroneously

concluded that the candidate had cheated or plagiarised or attempted to gain an unfair advantage in the thesis or in any element of work submitted for the degree.
 

1.2.  A candidate who wishes to appeal against the termination of course on the grounds of unsatisfactory progress, prior

to the meeting of the examiners, shall be treated under the terms of the "Regulations Governing Reviews and Appeals by Students on Taught Courses."

1.3    A candidate registered on a postgraduate research course who wishes to appeal against any decision of a Board of

Examiners that relates to any circumstances other than the thesis (for example, the outcome of a taught course, practical examination or clinical placement) shall be treated under the terms of the "Regulations Governing Reviews and Appeals by Students on Taught Courses." 

1.4     An appeal may only be lodged by a student; it may not be lodged by a representative or by a parent.

2.1     Candidates wishing to exercise their right of appeal shall give written notice to the Director of Student Services,

normally within 21 working days from the date when the examiners' or assessors' decision was formally communicated to them.

2.2     The written notice should include the grounds on which an appeal is being made; the desired outcome of the appeal;

the identify, if known, of any person accompanying the appellant (see 4.3, below); and a summary of evidence adduced in support of the appeal.  Any appeal citing medical factors must be supported by appropriate certificates.

2.3     After the appeal has been lodged, the Chair of the committee may, following discussion with at least one other

member of the Committee, rule that the appeal is groundless and should be dismissed.  In this case, the Secretary of the

Committee will send a full written explanation to the appellant, normally within 21 working days of the appeal having been lodged.

2.4     If the Chair of the Committee judges that the appellant has provided sufficient grounds for the appeal to be

entertained, the Secretary will send a copy of the appellant's statement to the Head(s) of School(s) and supervisor(s), asking if it contains information not known to the School Board.  In the light of the information in the appellant's statement, the Head of the School, acting on behalf of the School Board, may agree to change the Board's decision, in which case the appeal succeeds without a hearing.

3.1    The Research Degree Appeals Committee shall consist of:

The Vice-Chancellor or a Deputy Vice-Chancellor in the Chair;
The Head of School other than that concerned;
A member of the academic staff who is from a School other than that concerned;
A postgraduate student who is from a School other than that concerned appointed by the Students' Union President;
An external member, nominated by the Vice-Chancellor, who shall normally be a member of the academic staff of another institution with substantial experience of supervising candidates for higher degrees in the relevant subject area;

The Director of Student Services, or representative, shall act as Secretary to the Committee.

3.2     None of the members of the Committee may have had any previous connection with the candidate or other

involvement which may be felt to prejudice their fair opinion.  In the event of any disagreement about the suitability of any member of the Committee, the decision of the Chair shall be final.

4.       The Secretary shall convene a meeting of the Committee normally within two months of receipt of the candidate's

written notice of appeal, enclosing a copy of the appellant's letter and any supporting evidence.  The Secretary shall notify the appellant in writing:

4.1     of the date, time and place of the meeting;
4.2     of the names of those constituting the Committe;
4.3     that the appellant is entitled either to attend in person, alone or accompanied by his/her supervisor(s) or by any

other member of the University willing to assist in this way, or by a legally qualified person; or to be represented in his/her absence by such a person; and that it is in the appellant's own interests to be so accompanied or represented.

4.4     that the Committee reserves the right to take legal advice on its own behalf and, if the appellant elects to be

accompanied or represented by a legally qualified person, it may also invite its legal adviser to be present at the hearing.

5.       Not less than seven working days before the hearing the Head of the School shall supply the Secretary with copies

of the examiners' (or assessors', in the case of an upgrade) reports and a written statement of any other facts which in the School's view should be taken into account.  The Secretary shall send, under confidential cover, copies of the examiners' (or assessors') reports and of the School statement to the Committee, to the Head(s) of the School(s) and to the appellant's supervisor(s).  Two copies of each shall be sent to the appellant.

6.       The Dean of the Faculty or the Dean's representative shall attend the hearing of the appeal.  Head(s) of the

School(s) concerned or their representatives shall be entitles to attend the hearing.  The hearing shall be in private and any other witnesses who may be called shall not be present except while testifying.

7.       The appellant's supervisor(s) shall be notified by the Secretary of the time and place of the hearing.  If not

accompanying or representing the appellant, the supervisor(s) should be available and may be called as a witness by the appellant or by the School.

8.       At the hearing the Committee shall first hear any representations made and evidence called by or on behalf of the

appellant, and then any further representations made and evidence called on behalf of the School.  The Head of School shall be entitled to question any person testifying on behalf of the appellant, and the appellant or appellant's representative shall be entitled to question any person testifying on behalf of the School.  The Committee may also question any of the parties.

9.       The Head of School or his/her representative, followed by the appellant or his/her representative, shall

be entitled to make a short final speech summarising their submission.

10.     All those present other than the members of the Committee, its legal adviser (where appointed, and where continuing

legal advice is required) and its Secretary shall then withdraw and the Committee shall consider its decision.  this decision shall be arrived at on the basis of the previous testimony and submissions; if any new considerations emerge during the Committee's deliberations which the Committee considers to be relevant those who have withdrawn shall be recalled, told what these considerations are and given an opportunity of commenting on or refuting them.

11.     The Committee may invite the parties to return to the hearing and shall then announce its decision, to be confirmed in

writing immediately afterwards; or shall announce its decision in writing as soon as possible after the hearing.  The Secretary shall notify all concerned of the result of the appeal; shall prepare a full record of the hearing; and shall prepare a report for Senate, which shall include the reason for the Committee's decision.

12.    The Appeals Committee acts on behalf of Senate and may take one of the following courses of action:

12.1    the Committee may dismiss the appeal;

12.2    when the appeal is on either of the grounds stated in 1.1.1 and 1.1.2 above, the Committee may:

12.2.1	either request the original board of examiners, via the School Board concerned, to amend its recommendation;
12.2.2	or give the candidate permission to revise the thesis and re-submit it for re-examination within a specified time;
12.2.3	or declare the examination null and void and direct that a fresh examination be conducted.

12.3   where the appeal is on the grounds stated in 1.1.3 or 1.1.5 above, the Committee may direct that the thesis shall be

re-examined;

12.4   where the appeal is on the grounds stated at 1.1.4 above, the Committee may give the candidate permission to revise

the thesis and re-submit for re-examination within a specified time.  In this case, the Committee will state whether or not a further period of full-time or part-time supervised study is required; and will instruct the School to ensure that satisfactory supervisory arrangements are made for the period until resubmission.

12.5   where the appeal is against a decision not to upgrade from MPhil to PhD status, the Committee may:

12.5.1	either request the School to amend its decision and to permit the student to upgrade to PhD status;
12.5.2	or request that the School inform the student what additional workis necessary for an upgrade to PhD status, and by what date this material should be submitted to the original assessment panel;
12.5.3	or request that the School reassesses the student within six weeksof the meeting of the Appeals Committee, and that the Head of School, or his/her nominee, and one other member of academic staff in the School or an external examiner be added to the original assessment panel.  (In these circumstances, it is recommended that the Head of School should discuss the composition of the new panel with the Dean of the Faculty.)

13.    Where the decision of the Committee is for re-examination under clauses 12.2.2, 12.2.3, 12.3 or 12.4 above, the

following procedure shall apply:

13.1   The School Board shall appoint new examiners, no fewer in number than on the original board and including at least

two external examiners;

13.2   The external examiners shall be given no information about the previous examination other than that they are

conducting a re-examination on appeal and are required to hold an oral examination;

13.3   the examiners shall report on the thesis independently before they examine the candidate orally, and shall make a

joint report after the oral examination.

13.4   The reports of the members of the original board of examiners and of the new board shall be sent to the School

Board; where the recommendations of the two boards do not agree, any agreed recommendation of the new board will normally be expected to prevail;

13.5   The Committee will normally make a recommendation to the School about whether or not the candidate shall be liable

for any fees in respect of any further period of registration required before re-examination.

The outcome of the re-examination shall be publised in the normal way.

14.     In its Report to Senate of the outcome of the appeal the Committee may, if it sees fit, also make recommendations

of a more general nature on issues that arise from the hearing.  The School(s) concerned shall be given the opportunity to comment upon any recommendations that concern them.

15.     All those present at the hearing shall at all times treat any evidence given at the hearing as confidential.

16.     One copy of all the papers presented to the Committee will be retained by the Secretary for a period of twenty-four

months following the date of the hearing.

17.     These regulations describe in detail the procedures to be followed in the event of an appeal being lodged by a

postgraduate research student at the University of Southampton.  Procedures in the Accredited Colleges will follow the spirit of these regulations but may differ in their detailed application as a consequence of the different academic structures of these institutions.

18.     The decision of the Appeals Committee is final, subject only to the provisions of Section 18.20 of the Statutes of the

University. If the mechanisms described above do not produce a solution which the student finds acceptable, it is possible under the University's Statutes (number 18(20)) to ask the Council 'to entertain, adjudicate upon, and, if thought fit, redress any grievance.' In such instances a special committee is set up to reach a view whether there is a prima facie case for consideration, and, if so, to consider the matter in detail and to reach an adjudication on behalf of Council. Students wishing to initiate a grievance to Council should write to the Secretary and Registrar, setting out the grounds on which they feel aggrieved; and documenting the action they have taken to attempt to resolve the problem.

19.     There also exists an external mechanism for review of the University's actions: this is currently Her Majesty the Queen

in her capacity as Visitor who operates through the President of the Privy Council. A statement issued by the Privy Council entitled 'Petitions To the President of The Council In Her Role As Visitor' explains what matters are, or are not, suitable for a petition to the Visitor; how a petition should be prepared; and how petitions will be dealt with. The Privy Council Office statement can be accessed at www.privy-council.org.uk/output/Page48.asp The paragraphs that follow (20/27) are extracted from this document.

20.     The Visitor may consider a petition only if the University's own internal procedures have been exhausted. The Visitor

will not intervene on matters which turn purely on academic assessment. The Visitor's role is to review the application by the University of its own internal procedures. The Visitor will not normally intervene unless it can be shown that the University has failed to observe its own rules or procedures; or that, although it has followed the proper procedures, it has reached a decision that no reasonable body, properly directing itself, and taking account of all relevant factors, could have arrived at.

21.     There is no set format for a petition, and there is no need to use legalistic language, nor does a petition need to be

lengthy. A petition should: set out the facts clearly in chronological order; be specific about the particular procedures which are alleged to have been breached; enclose copies of the relevant rules and regulations and any other relevant documents, including any correspondence which bears on the case; say clearly what action the Visitor is being asked to take. Petitioners should try to avoid emotive language and to adopt a neutral and factual tone.

22.     Petitions should be addressed to: The Clerk of the Council, Privy Council Office, 2 Carlton Gardens, London

SW1Y 5AA. They should be clearly marked 'Petition to the Visitor.'

23.     Petitions are initially examined to see whether there is a prima facie case for the Visitor's intervention.

(See 2.11.1, above.) at this stage, there may be correspondence with the petitioner to clear up any queries that arise.

24.     If there appears to be no prima facie case, the petitioner will be informed that, on the evidence so far presented,

there appear to be no grounds for the Visitor to intervene, with reasons. It is open to the petitioner to provide additional evidence to show that the case is, in fact, one in which the Visitor can intervene.

25.     If the petition appears to show a prima facie case for the Visitor's intervention, it will be forwarded to the

University for an answer. The Visitor will formally direct the University to provide an answer within six weeks. The University's response will then be sent to the petitioner, who will be able to respond to the points made in it.

26.     Once any response the petitioner wishes to make has been received, the case will be submitted to the Visitor,

who will normally decide on the basis of the three sets of documents (the original petition, the University's answer and the petitioner's response). There will not normally be an oral hearing.

27.     The petitioner and the University will then be informed of the Visitor's decision, with the reasons for it.

28.     Further information about, or clarification of these procedures is available from The Student Support Manager,

Department of Student Services, University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ; telephone: 023-80-593062; fax: 593037.

29.     Students considering lodging a request for an appeal under the terms of these regulations are strongly advised

to make early contact with the "Advice and Information Centre" in the Students' Union.