Legal Analysis of Sam's Exam Malpractice Case

This report provides a legal analysis of Sam's exam malpractice case with reference to the Student Misconduct Regulation Act 2018. It covers issues such as the deadline for response, distance measurement, registrar's obligation to review academic records, and personal appearance hearing. The report concludes that Sam was within the timeframe for response, and the registrar was obligated to review his academic transcript. The report also suggests that Sam should be granted a personal appearance hearing.

To:
From:
Date:
Subject: Advice on Sam’s Case
The following report gives various issues on the relationship between Sam and the Registrar
from a legal standpoint on the issue of his exam malpractice case. The Student Misconduct
Regulation Act 2018 (herein referred to as the Act) which is the legislation governing cheating
and issues of academic misconduct among the students will be an important authority when
assessing Sam’s situation.
A copy of the allegations was availed to Sam on August 1. The Act provides that anyone wishing
to be heard should formally write to the register a month after receipt of the show cause by 9:00
a.m. Section 37 of the Commonwealth act in relation to time, provides that the phrase “time”
means the standard or legal time in the place where the legislation applies. In this case, the time
to be used when determining the deadline of lodging the response was the time in the NT in
Central Australia where the campus is located. This is the jurisdiction to which the provision was
to apply. Therefore, being 1 hour ahead in his hometown, Sam was still within the working
timeframe by submitting his letter at 9:45 a.m.
Sam lodged his response on September 2 and he was definitely within the timeframe given. As
provided in section 35 of the commonwealth act, distance shall be measured in a straight line on
a horizontal plane. It is immaterial that Sam can easily access NT campus via flight. Thus
600kms between the campus and his home warrants him the privileges of Reg. 30 of the Act.

The provision allows students more than 5000kms from the campus an additional 5 days to lodge
in their responses.
On the question of whether the registrar must go through Sam’s records prior to issuance of a
punishment. Reg. 32 requires the registrar to consider a number of plausible issues prior to
issuance of a penalty in such malpractice. The Act expressly states that “The Registrar shall
consider the past academic record and conduct of the student.” The NT and commonwealth Acts
do not include the interpretation of “shall” in them. However, considering the statutory
interpretation given to it in the modern approach, it denotes an imperative command which
imposes a legal obligation. Therefore, the Registrar’s failure to review Sam’s academic transcript
was a contravention of this provision. She was obligated to review and not even time, in this
case, was an excuse for not reviewing. Furthermore, her reliance on other student’s testimonies
about Sam was not always going to give reliable information. Sam had a medium GPA and has
never been reported in the list of misconduct regulators yet the oral testimonies did not reflect
this. The principles of natural justice also demand that any person be given the freedom to be
heard. Sam has a right to be heard prior to the sealing of his fate on the foregoing issue.
On the question of whether Sam should be granted personal appearance hearing. Reg. 36
provides that the Registrar may allow the student to appear in person at the hearing if she deems
the issue sufficiently serious to warrant personal appearance. Interpretation Acts denote that the
word “may” connotes discretion. S 33 (2A) of the Commonwealth Act as well as s 9 (2) of the
NSW Act aid in the interpretation of this term. They explain that such a term allows the
governing person or authority to choose either to accredit or dismiss. In the foregoing, it is up to
the Registrar to choose on whether Sam should be granted personal appearance or not as she
deems fit.

However, if brought before court for review, it is likely that the appellate court will undertake an
objective test. In the case of Project Blue sky Inc. v Australian Broadcasting authority, the high
court opined that in exercising its discretion, the court will consider whether compliance with set
provisions was mandatory or directory. The court will look at the purpose of the provision and
assess whether the legislators or drafters desired that a breach of such a provision should be
invalid. Accordingly, Sam’s reason for seeking a personal appearance in the hearing is that he is
poor at expressing himself in writing and would do much better arguing in person. Weighing this
with Reg. 36, it is unequivocal that there is sufficiently reasonable basis to warrant personal
hearing and there is no justifiable course for not according one. Allowing him the opportunity to
be heard would aid achieve a just conclusion.

References
New South Wales (NSW) Act
Project Blue Sky v ABA [1998] HCA 28
Sanson, M. (2012). Statutory interpretation.2nd Ed
Student Misconduct Regulation Act 2018
The Commonwealth Act.