Appeals Rule 2023

Reviewable decision is the central concept of the instrument. Section 5 defines it as either a discipline decision or an academic integrity decision. The rule does not create any free‑standing right of review; it only activates if the decision is declared reviewable by the Discipline Rule or the Academic Integrity Rule respectively. Discipline decision is defined by section 6 as a decision that the Discipline Rule declares to be a reviewable decision. Similarly, academic integrity decision under section 7 is a decision declared reviewable by the Academic Integrity Rule. Both definitions are parasitic on the content of those other rules, meaning that a reader must consult those instruments to determine the precise scope of decisions covered.

Student is defined broadly in section 4 as a person who is or was enrolled in, or seeking enrolment in, a program or course offered by the University, or who has permission to audit a program or course. This includes former students and applicants, which is significant because a person may need to challenge a decision made while enrolled or after ceasing enrolment. The definition used for membership of the Appeals Panel (section 12) is slightly narrower: a person enrolled in a program or course (not former or seeking). So a person who ceases to be enrolled ceases to be a Panel member (section 12(4)).

Appeals Panel is the pool of potential committee members. Section 12 requires the Academic Board to appoint at least six persons in each of two categories: students (after consultation with the student association) and persons with knowledge or experience in the teaching, research, or visual and performing arts functions of the University. The two‑year term and eligibility for reappointment are noted. Appeals Committee is the body constituted from the Panel for a particular review. Section 13 requires at least four members: one student member and three from the other category, with a Chair appointed from the non‑student category. The committee must exclude the original decision‑maker, and for academic integrity decisions it must include a person from the relevant academic discipline (or a related discipline if impossible). The quorum is three members including the Chair.

Original decision‑maker is not given a dedicated definition but is described in context (e.g., sections 14, 27). The rule excludes the original decision‑maker from sitting on the Appeals Committee and prohibits that person from personally exercising certain administrative functions under the rule (section 27). This separation is intended to ensure impartiality.

Registrar performs key gate‑keeping and administrative functions: receiving applications, rejecting invalid ones, referring valid ones, appointing committees, and extending time limits. The Registrar may delegate functions (section 67 of the Governance Statute is referenced in notes). The rule also provides for a Secretary to the Appeals Committee, who arranges material and communicates the decision.

Undertaking is a concept under section 24. It is a promise by the student accepted by the Appeals Committee. If breached, the committee may revoke its earlier decision and remake any of the decisions available under section 23(1). This gives the committee a continuing supervisory power.

The primary persons affected are students of the Australian National University, as defined in section 4: that is, persons who are or were enrolled in, or seeking enrolment in, a program or course, or who are auditing a program or course. Any student who receives a discipline decision or an academic integrity decision that is declared reviewable under the Discipline Rule or the Academic Integrity Rule is entitled to apply for review under this rule. The rule does not limit the type of penalty or action that may be challenged; the focus is on the decision itself, not the status of the student. Students who are not currently enrolled but were enrolled at the time of the relevant conduct are still covered, as are applicants for enrolment.

The rule also affects original decision‑makers - the persons who made the discipline or academic integrity decision. Section 27 prohibits the original decision‑maker from personally exercising certain functions under the rule, including rejecting applications, referring them, appointing committees, conducting hearings, and extending time. This is designed to preserve the appearance of impartiality. However, the original decision‑maker may be required to remake a decision if the Appeals Committee refers additional material back under section 14(2).

The Registrar of the University is a central actor. The Registrar must receive applications, assess their validity, reject invalid ones after giving the student an opportunity to make a written submission, refer valid ones to an Appeals Committee, appoint the committee and its Chair and Secretary, and decide whether to extend time limits. The Registrar may also appear at hearings and call witnesses (section 19(2)). The Registrar may delegate these functions.

The Academic Board is responsible for appointing the Appeals Panel under section 12(1). The student association must be consulted before student members are appointed to the Panel.

The Appeals Panel members are affected because they may be called to serve on an Appeals Committee. Student members cease to hold office if they cease to be enrolled (section 12(4)). The rule does not provide a mechanism for removal other than resignation or automatic cessation.

The Appeals Committee itself - its members, Chair, Secretary, and any assistants - are affected because they must conduct reviews in accordance with the rule, including making decisions within ten working days, providing material to students, and ensuring procedural fairness.

Other institutions are affected indirectly through section 26, which allows joint, double or dual program agreements to override the rule if inconsistent. Students in such programs may have different review rights depending on the agreement.

Student’s rights. A student who is the subject of a reviewable decision has the right to apply for review under section 9. The application must be in writing, specify the grounds relied upon (from the closed list in section 8), include reasons, and be given to the Registrar within twenty working days of receiving the written decision and statement of reasons. If the application appears invalid, the student has the right to make a written submission before the Registrar rejects it (section 10(2)). If the application is valid, the student is entitled to have it referred to an Appeals Committee (section 11). Before the hearing, the student must be given a copy of the material on which the Appeals Committee intends to rely, at least five working days before the hearing (section 15). At the hearing, the student may appear in person, call and question witnesses, and make oral or written submissions (section 20(1)). The student may also be accompanied by a nominated person who may observe the proceedings and, with the Chair’s express approval, act as an advocate (section 20(2)). If the student participates remotely under a permission or requirement from the Chair, they are taken to have appeared in person (section 21(4)). The student is entitled to a written decision with reasons within ten working days after the decision (section 23(8)). The student may give an undertaking to the committee (section 24).

Registrar’s duties. The Registrar must reject an invalid application only after giving the applicant an opportunity to comment (section 10(2)), and must notify the applicant and the original decision‑maker in writing with reasons (section 10(3)). If the application is not rejected, the Registrar must refer it to an Appeals Committee (section 11). The Registrar must appoint an Appeals Committee of at least four members, ensuring the student member is from the student category and the Chair is from the other category (section 13). The Registrar must appoint a Secretary and may appoint assistants (section 13(6)-(7)). For academic integrity decisions, the Registrar must ensure the committee includes a person from the relevant academic discipline (section 13(8)). The Registrar may extend time limits under section 28, considering the reason for extension, the period of extension, and prejudice.

Appeals Committee’s duties. The committee is bound by the rules of procedural fairness but not by the rules of evidence (section 19(1)(b)(ii)). It must take into account any submission made by the student or the Registrar (section 19(1)(b)(iii)). It must consider whether to conduct an oral hearing, taking into account reasonable participation, stress, and any other relevant factor (section 17). If the review relates only to penalty, the committee must consider only the question of penalty (section 18). In deciding penalty under the Academic Integrity Rule, the committee must take into account the nature and severity of the breach, its effect, the objectives of punishment, deterrence and rehabilitation, and health and safety (section 23(4)). Same for misconduct under the Discipline Rule (section 23(6)). It may also consider prior findings. The committee must give written reasons within ten working days (section 23(8)).

Duty of the original decision‑maker. The original decision‑maker must not personally exercise functions under sections 10, 11, 13, 19, 20, or 28 (section 27). This prevents the decision‑maker from being involved in the review process in an administrative or adjudicative capacity.

The Appeals Rule 2023 is a procedural instrument; it does not itself create penalties. Instead, it governs the review of penalties imposed under the Academic Integrity Rule and the Discipline Rule. However, the rule gives the Appeals Committee a range of powers that directly affect the enforceability of penalties and actions.

Powers of the Appeals Committee. Under section 23(1), the committee may confirm the original decision, vary it, set it aside and substitute a fresh decision, or simply set it aside. If it varies or substitutes, the outcome must be a decision that the original decision‑maker could have made (section 23(3)). This means the committee cannot impose a harsher penalty than the original decision‑maker was authorised to impose, but it can reduce or alter the penalty within the original decision‑maker’s range. The committee may also accept an undertaking from the student (section 23(2)(a)). If the student breaches the undertaking, the committee may revoke its earlier decision and make any decision it could have made under section 23(1) (section 24(3)). This gives the committee a continuing enforcement mechanism: the undertaking becomes a condition, and breach revives the committee’s jurisdiction to impose a fresh decision.

Consequences of non‑appearance. If the student does not appear in person, is not otherwise represented, and does not make a written submission, section 22 treats the review as finalised and the original decision takes effect (if it has not already). This is a default enforcement provision that preserves the status quo and prevents a student from delaying proceedings without participating.

Fresh decision after referral back. If the Appeals Committee receives additional material not before the original decision‑maker, and considers it cogent, relevant or substantial, it may refer the decision back to the original decision‑maker to remake the decision (section 14(2)-(3)). The remade decision stands in place of the original and may itself be subject to review. This creates a potential loop, but the committee can manage it.

Factors in penalty decisions. Sections 23(4)-(7) direct the committee to consider the nature and severity of the breach, the effect (including loss, damage, or harm), the objectives of punishment, deterrence and rehabilitation, and health and safety. The committee may also take into account any other finding of a breach against the same student. These factors guide the committee’s discretion but do not create mandatory minima or maxima.

Finality. Section 25 states that the decision of the Appeals Committee is final. This means that within the University’s internal processes, no further appeal is available under this rule. The rule does not purport to oust the jurisdiction of courts for judicial review, but it establishes the internal endpoint.

No external enforcement power in the rule. The rule does not create any power to enforce decisions through external legal means (e.g., debt recovery, trespass orders). Such enforcement would rely on other university legislation or general law.

Made under the Governance Statute. The rule is expressly made under section 68(1) of the Australian National University (Governance) Statute 2023, which confers a general power to make rules and orders. This means the rule is a legislative instrument made by the Vice‑Chancellor, subject to registration and tabling requirements under the Legislation Act of the Australian Capital Territory (referenced in the note to sections 10 and 16). It is subordinate legislation and must be consistent with the Governance Statute and the ANU Act (Australian National University Act 1991 (Cth)).

Relationship with the Discipline Rule and the Academic Integrity Rule. The rule is entirely dependent on those two instruments to define which decisions are reviewable (sections 6 and 7). The rule does not purport to override the substantive provisions of those rules; it only provides a review mechanism for decisions made under them. A decision that is not declared reviewable by the Discipline Rule or Academic Integrity Rule cannot be reviewed under this rule, regardless of its impact on the student.

Interaction with other university legislation. The rule references the Legislation Statute multiple times. Section 32 applies the Legislation Statute’s section 26 (effect of repeal) to the repeal of the Appeals Rule 2021. The note to section 4 directs readers to the dictionary in the Legislation Statute for definitions of “breach”, “University legislation”, and “working day”. The note to section 10 refers to section 24 of the Legislation Statute for service of notices. The rule also incorporates, by reference, the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) as applied by section 13(1)(a) of the Legislation Act (section 33). This means that standard interpretive principles apply, including the effect of repeal (section 7 of the Acts Interpretation Act) and the power to do acts in between.

Joint program agreements. Section 26 provides that a provision of this rule has no effect to the extent it is inconsistent with an agreement between the University and another institution regarding joint, double or dual programs (including cotutelle) and the joint conferral of degrees. This is a conflict provision that gives primacy to the agreement. If both provisions can operate concurrently, they are not inconsistent (section 26(2)). This means that students in such programs may have different appeal rights depending on the specific agreement.

Transitional provisions and earlier rules. Division 7.2 preserves the operation of the Appeals Rule 2018 for conduct engaged in before 1 December 2021, and for conduct after that date to which the Academic Misconduct Rule 2015 applies (section 30). The Appeals Rule 2021 is repealed (section 29). This creates a layered transitional regime where the rule that applies depends on when the conduct occurred and which substantive rule governs it. The transitional orders power in section 31 allows further adjustments by order.

Expiry. Section 34 provides that the instrument expires ten years after commencement. This is a sunset clause that ensures the rule is reviewed within a decade. If not remade, the review framework lapses.

Interaction with external law. The rule does not mention general administrative law or judicial review. However, because the University is a statutory body, decisions under its rules may be subject to challenge in the Federal Court or the Supreme Court of the ACT on natural justice or jurisdictional error grounds. The rule’s internal finality (section 25) does not preclude such external review.

The instrument itself is the Appeals Rule 2023, made by the Vice‑Chancellor on 5 July 2023 and commencing on the later of registration and 1 July 2023 (section 2). It is a new rule, not an amendment of a previous rule. However, it repeals and replaces the Appeals Rule 2021 (section 29). The rule does not contain any history of amendments made to itself; it is the current version. The transitional provisions reveal the earlier rule that applied to conduct before 1 December 2021: the Appeals Rule 2018. Section 30(3) provides that despite the repeal of the Appeals Rule 2018 by the Appeals Rule 2021, the 2018 rule continues to apply to certain conduct if it would have applied had both the 2018 and 2021 rules remained in force. This means there are effectively three sequential appeals rules (2018, 2021, 2023), each replacing the previous one.

The rule itself is made under the 2023 Governance Statute, which replaced earlier governance statutes. The consolidation of the appeals framework into this rule represents a continuation of the University’s policy. The instrument includes an expiry provision of ten years (section 34), meaning that unless it is continued or remade before 1 July 2033, the rule will cease to have effect. This built‑in expiry is notable because it requires the University to actively reaffirm the rule, rather than allowing it to remain in force indefinitely. The transitional orders power under section 31 allows orders to be made to deal with transitional matters relating to the repeal of the 2021 rule or the making of this instrument. Such orders could effectively amend the application of the rule without changing its text, but only for transitional purposes.

The text of the Appeals Rule 2023 contains no reference to any court proceedings or judicial decisions. The instrument is an internal university rule and operates within a closed administrative framework. However, the rule’s grounds for review in section 8 closely mirror grounds recognised in administrative law: procedural irregularity, bias, manifest error, mistaken application of law, new evidence, and manifestly excessive penalty. This structure suggests that the University has attempted to codify a standard of review that reflects common law principles, but without relying on any specific judicial precedents.

Because the rule is a legislative instrument made by the Vice‑Chancellor under the Governance Statute, it could theoretically be challenged in court on grounds of procedural ultra vires or unreasonableness, though such challenges are rare for internal university rules. The finality provision in section 25 (“The decision of the Appeals Committee is final”) is a standard internal finality clause; it does not purport to exclude the jurisdiction of the courts. A student who has exhausted internal review could still seek judicial review in the Federal Court under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) if the decision is of an administrative character made under a Commonwealth enactment, or in the Supreme Court of the ACT on common law grounds.

No litigation involving this specific rule has been identified from the text. The rule is too new (commenced 1 July 2023) to have generated a significant body of case law. The earlier rules (Appeals Rule 2018 and Appeals Rule 2021) may have been the subject of litigation, but the 2023 rule does not mention any such cases. A researcher would need to search databases for decisions relating to ANU discipline or academic integrity appeals. The rule’s explicit adoption of the rules of procedural fairness (section 19(1)(b)(ii)) reinforces that the University intends the review to meet the standards of natural justice, which may reduce the likelihood of successful external challenge on procedural grounds.

Several provisions contain traps for the unwary student or administrator. The twenty‑working‑day time limit in section 9(2)(d) is strict, and the Registrar may reject an application that is out of time without further extension (section 10(1)(c)). However, the Registrar has power to extend time under section 28, but only after taking into account the reason for extension, the period, and prejudice. A student who misses the deadline and has no good reason may lose the right to review entirely. The application must also include a statement of reasons supporting the grounds (section 9(2)(c)). A bare application without reasons may be rejected.

The closed list of grounds in section 8 is exhaustive. A student cannot raise new grounds not listed. For example, a claim of substantive unfairness that does not fall within “manifestly wrong” (section 8(1)(c)) or “mistaken application of University legislation” (section 8(1)(d)) may be rejected. The ground of new evidence (section 8(1)(e)) is narrow: the evidence must be “substantial” and could not have been known to the student and provided before the decision. This is not a general fresh evidence rule.

Oral hearings are not guaranteed. Section 17(1) states that the application may be decided with or without an oral hearing. The committee may take into account whether an oral hearing would unnecessarily subject a party or witness to stress (section 17(2)(b)). This could be used to deny an oral hearing even if the student requests one. The Chair decides (section 17(3)). The student should consider making a strong case for why an oral hearing is necessary.

If the student does not appear and does not make a written submission, the review is taken to be finalised and the original decision takes effect (section 22). The student may not know this if they rely on the hearing going ahead without them. There is no provision for rescheduling if the student simply fails to appear. The rule also allows the committee to decide even if the student appears but the committee decides to proceed.

Additional material submitted to the committee after the decision may be assessed on the papers summarily (section 14(1)). If the committee considers it cogent, relevant or substantial, it may refer the decision back to the original decision‑maker to remake the decision (section 14(2)). The remade decision then stands (section 14(3)(a)) and is itself reviewable (section 14(3)(b)). This means the student may be sent back to the start, with the risk that the decision‑maker could impose a different (including harsher) penalty, as long as it is within the original decision‑maker’s power.

The composition of the Appeals Committee is critical. For academic integrity decisions, the committee must include a person from the relevant academic discipline (section 13(8)). If that is not possible, a related discipline suffices. A student from a highly specialised field might find that no committee member has relevant expertise. The student cannot challenge the composition once the committee is appointed, as the rule does not give them a right to veto members.

Undertakings are serious. If a student gives an undertaking and breaches it, the committee may revoke its earlier decision and impose a fresh one (section 24). The committee may also take the breach into account in deciding the fresh decision (section 24(4)). This creates a risk that the student ends up in a worse position than before the review.

The rule expires after ten years (section 34). If by 1 July 2033 the rule has not been remade, the entire internal review framework lapses. Students would then have no internal avenue to challenge discipline or academic integrity decisions, unless another rule is made.

For a student seeking review. The first step is to receive a decision that is reviewable. The student should check that the decision has been declared reviewable by the Discipline Rule or the Academic Integrity Rule. If it is not, the application will be rejected under section 10(1)(a). Once the student receives the written decision and a statement of reasons, the clock starts: twenty working days (section 9(2)(d)). The student must prepare a written application addressed to the Registrar. The application must specify one or more of the grounds in section 8 and include a statement of the student’s reasons in support of those grounds. The statement should be detailed, addressing each ground with specific facts and references to the evidence. The student should also note that the Registrar will give an opportunity to comment before rejection if the application appears invalid (section 10(2)). The student should respond promptly if contacted.

If the application is accepted, the student will be notified and an Appeals Committee will be appointed. The student should then receive the material on which the committee intends to rely, no later than five working days before the hearing (section 15). The student should review this material carefully. The student may request an oral hearing, but should be aware that the committee may decide without one. If the student wants an oral hearing, they should provide reasons why it is necessary (e.g., if credibility of witnesses is in issue). The student may also request remote participation (section 21). The student should ensure they are available on the date fixed.

At the hearing, the student may appear in person or, with the Chair’s approval, through an advocate nominated by the student (section 20(2)). The student should prepare written submissions and have any witnesses ready. The student may call and question witnesses (section 20(1)(b)). The student should be prepared for the Registrar to appear and present the case. The student should note that the hearing is not bound by rules of evidence, but procedural fairness applies. The student should behave respectfully.

After the decision, the student will receive written reasons within ten working days (section 23(8)). If the decision is unfavourable, the student cannot appeal further under this rule (section 25). The student may consider external avenues if they believe there was a jurisdictional error.

For the original decision‑maker. The decision‑maker must not personally exercise any of the functions listed in section 27. If the decision‑maker receives a request from the Appeals Committee to remake a decision after additional material is referred back under section 14(2), the decision‑maker must do so, but cannot delegate the remaking to themselves? Actually, the prohibition in section 27 only applies to certain listed functions; remaking the decision after referral back is not listed, so the original decision‑maker can personally remake the decision. However, the decision‑maker must be careful to consider the new material fairly and without bias. The decision‑maker should also ensure that any remade decision is within the original decision‑maker’s power.

For the Registrar. The Registrar must manage applications efficiently. When an application is received, the Registrar should check whether it meets the requirements: is it a reviewable decision? Are grounds specified? Is the time limit met? If not, the Registrar must give the student a written opportunity to comment before rejecting (section 10(2)). If the application is valid, the Registrar must refer it to an Appeals Committee and appoint the committee within a reasonable time. The Registrar should ensure the committee composition complies with section 13, including the requirement for discipline‑relevant membership for academic integrity decisions. The Registrar should also consider any requests for extension of time under section 28, and decide based on the reason for extension, the period, and prejudice. The Registrar must keep records of all applications and decisions. The Registrar should also be aware of the transitional provisions in Part 7 to determine which rule applies to conduct before certain dates.