NOTES OF CASES
| Published date | 01 November 1969 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1969.tb01245.x |
| Date | 01 November 1969 |
NOTES
OF
CASES
UNIVERSITY STAFF-STUDENT RELATIONS
AND
NATURAL
JUSTICE
R.
v.
Senate
of
the University
of
Aston, ex
p.
Rooey,’
involved
a
novel intervention by the doctrine
of
natural justice
in
the academic
affairs of a British university.
It
is also
a
straw in the wind. One
of the sobriquets rarely applied
to
the country in which we live
is that of a,society of opportunity. Yet,
to
an extent unprecedented
in British history are opportunities available today
to
use one’s
abilities what>vfr they may be and at whatever level they may
lie.
An
immense; complicated and costly structure has been created
and continues to be developed for the education and training
of the young, but they are allowed to grope their way through
it
or
be lost in
it
without, on the whole, systematic guidance and
counsel. This is the real issue raised by
Ex parte Rooey,
although
there is a danger that the real issue will be missed and be mistaken
for one of formal rules and regulations.
Roffey and Pantridge were student members of the University
of Aston
in
Birmingham reading for the degree of B.Sc. with
honours in Behavioural Science. This course had been available
since
1964,
and
its first year consisted of three major subjects
(Elements of Psychology, Sociology and Economics), and two
subsidiary subjects (Introductory Statistics and Social and
Economic History). In June
1967,
Roffey failed in both subsidiary
subjects with marks of
20
and
16
respectively (the pass being
40)
while Pantridge failed only in Statistics with a mark of
18.
The University
of
Aston was incorporated by royal charter and
had a formal three-tier structure
of
Faculty-Senate-Council with
provision for a students’ union called a
“
guild.” The charter set
out the statutes of the University which, among other things,
allocated regulation-making and decisional powers
to
various bodies.
In exercise
of
its statutory power, the Senate approved regulations
which provided elaborately for determining the fate of candidates
who failed university examinations in a fairly wide range
of
different
circumstances. The relevant regulations
in
the present case were
the following
:
“
4
(e)
Any student who fails to achieve
a
pass standard in
Statistics and/or Social and Economic History may
on
the
recommendation of the examiners be permitted
to
take referred
examinations in these subjects, and, may, if successful, be
permitted
to
proceed on the Honours Course.’’
“4
(0
Students who fail
.
. .
in a referred examination, may,
at the discretion of the examiners, resit the whole examination
[1969]
2
All
E.R.
964.
680
Nov.
1969
NOTES
OF
CASES
681
or
may be required to withdraw from the course. Students who
are successful
in
such resit examinations shall normally be
eligible to proceed to the Pass Degree only.”
Both the students involved were recommended by the examiners
for
a
resit
in
September
1967,
but
in
this examination both failed
again, Roffey securing
24
in Statistics and
17
in Social and Economic
History while Pantridge secured
17
in his referred subsidiary subject.
The following sequence
of
events then took place:
September
19
(approx.): The Board of Examiners did not meet
but consultations were held between the examiners
in
the two
subsidiary subjects and
two
of the course tutors, one
of
whom was
the chairman of the relevant examining boards. Partly because
there had been an unprecedented failure rate
in
the resit examina-
tions, care was taken
to
consider in detail the
“
academic profile
”
of each candidate and, in addition, account was taken
of
any
personal
or
family problems which a candidate might have had.
It
was decided that of the eleven failed candidates, six, including
the applicants, be asked
to
withdraw from the course and this
decision was communicated to the students by letters dated
September
20.
September
25:
Roffey and Pantridge had interviews with their
tutor when they alleged they had been misled about the vital
importance of their results in the subsidiary examinations. The
complaint of the applicants as
of
the other failed students was
that, owing to misleading information, they believed the results
of
the subsidiary examinations were of
no
importance and ,that,
if
they had known what was at stake, they would have worked
harder.
September
28:
The President of the Students’ Guild, whom the
failed students had contacted, wrote to the Vice-Chancellor of the
University making
a
number of points, including that the pros-
spectus
of
the University
was
misleading,, that the students had been
misled by certain members
of
the teaching staff
to
believe that
failure in a subsidiary subject
‘‘
would not necessarily result in
their being sent down,” that the examiners’ meeting convened to
discuss the results of the September examinations was not properly
constituted, and that
a
number of general tutors were not informed
of the results of the resit examinations until after the candidates
were themselves informed. Following
on
this letter, the Vice-
Chancellor met the students’ President and as
a
result of their
discussion arranged for inquiries
to
be made
in
the relevant
department, namely, that of Industrial Administration.
October
4:
The Vice-Chancellor received a full report from the
head of that department who was also Dean of the Faculty of
Social Science, and suggested that the Board of Examiners should
reconsider all the decisions which they,
or
rather, some of them,
At
969.
To continue reading
Request your trial