Academic misconduct

The allegation relates solely to question 3 of the Take and Do assessment. It is alleged that you have colluded with another student (herein identified as Student A) in the preparation of the answer to that question. In comparing your answer with that of Student A, there are apparent and unusual similarities (please see appendices). Both answers have used the same authorities, and the basic structure of the answers is the same throughout, although the actual wording varies, and there are minor variations of detail. The striking similarity is in the errors which both answers contain. The principle in Wilkinson v Downton is not relevant as the interaction between the Mayor and the character Wilco is a potential assault, but does not meet any of the specific criteria of Wilkinson. The introduction of negligence is completely unnecessary, as is the introduction of defamation. The introduction of trespass to land, while not wrong, Is somewhat unusual, although one or two other candidates also mentioned it. It does however provide a further point of similarity. Overall it is the combination of a number of shared significant errors which is indicative of improper collusion. NLS It is asserted that the extent of the similarities (both in content and format) cannot be explained by way of coincidence.
I received this email from university and although i was in the same room/house as student A because of some family problems i did not physically copy there work i did skim at the end to make sure it made sense but in no means did i copy them i was hoping for some advice as to what to say as i have a meeting and I’m an emotional wreck right now.

The allegation relates solely to question 3 of the Take and Do assessment. It is alleged that you have colluded with another student (herein identified as Student A) in the preparation of the answer to that question. In comparing your answer with that of Student A, there are apparent and unusual similarities (please see appendices). Both answers have used the same authorities, and the basic structure of the answers is the same throughout, although the actual wording varies, and there are minor variations of detail. The striking similarity is in the errors which both answers contain. The principle in Wilkinson v Downton is not relevant as the interaction between the Mayor and the character Wilco is a potential assault, but does not meet any of the specific criteria of Wilkinson. The introduction of negligence is completely unnecessary, as is the introduction of defamation. The introduction of trespass to land, while not wrong, Is somewhat unusual, although one or two other candidates also mentioned it. It does however provide a further point of similarity. Overall it is the combination of a number of shared significant errors which is indicative of improper collusion. NLS It is asserted that the extent of the similarities (both in content and format) cannot be explained by way of coincidence.
I received this email from university and although i was in the same room/house as student A because of some family problems i did not physically copy there work i did skim at the end to make sure it made sense but in no means did i copy them i was hoping for some advice as to what to say as i have a meeting and I’m an emotional wreck right now.