Appeal

Hi everyone, I’ve been permanently excluded from the University for academic misconduct (AI use in assessments), and I’m appealing to request a resit instead of exclusion. This was my second offense, but at the time of my assessments, I was dealing with severe trauma, including sexual assault, hospitalization, and serious mental health struggles, which impaired my judgment. I only applied for mitigating circumstances after being caught, and the university rejected it, saying I should have disclosed it earlier. I’m submitting new medical/psychological evidence to show that my trauma made it impossible for me to engage with university procedures at the time. My appeal argues that the university failed to apply a trauma-informed approach, and that permanent exclusion is too severe, so I should be allowed to resit my assessments with academic integrity training as a fairer alternative. Has anyone successfully appealed permanent exclusionor been allowed to resit instead of being excluded for a second offense? Any advice on strengthening my appeal would be really appreciated. Thanks in advance!

You will really struggle to get this overturned. Even with very serious mitigating circumstances, resorting to academic misconduct and then only raising the other matters afterwards is not a compelling case. The fact that it was a second offense strengthens the case against you.
All you can do is try. Collate your medical evidence and speak to your Student Union. Just be prepared that the uni would be well within their rights to uphold their decision.

Not mean to be rude or offensive, but frankly the uni have their points.

I understand that overturning a second academic misconduct case is difficult, but my situation was handled unfairly because the university failed to apply a trauma-informed approach and imposed an extreme penalty without considering alternative sanctions. Trauma and mental health crises can impair decision-making, yet my mitigating circumstances were dismissed solely based on timing, not impact. My medical evidence confirms that my condition directly affected my ability to comply with academic rules, yet they ignored this. While I accept accountability, permanent exclusion is disproportionate when other penalties (like a suspension or capped resit) could have upheld academic integrity while also recognizing my exceptional circumstances

Much of this is true, but it would have held a lot more water for a fist offence. (I also assume that you're at least in your second year, where sanctions tend to be stricter, but that's not clear from your posts). I'm just making you aware that appealing on the grounds that you were impaired over two separate instances of misconduct is going to be tough, regardless of the uni's stance on taking a trauma-informed approach.
@gjd800 might be able to offer more advice if they are about, as they are much more familiar with appeals than me.

I understand that overturning a second academic misconduct case is difficult, but my situation was handled unfairly because the university failed to apply a trauma-informed approach and imposed an extreme penalty without considering alternative sanctions. Trauma and mental health crises can impair decision-making, yet my mitigating circumstances were dismissed solely based on timing, not impact. My medical evidence confirms that my condition directly affected my ability to comply with academic rules, yet they ignored this. While I accept accountability, permanent exclusion is disproportionate when other penalties (like a suspension or capped resit) could have upheld academic integrity while also recognizing my exceptional circumstances

As the OP has said, it was not the first offence. The OP should have known the procedures.
Even if the OP's current misconduct was committed under influence of tremendous mental stresses, the OP should have learned from the first offence to submit extenuating claims before caught. How would the uni think? Whether the OP had learned from the first offence? Or just testing his/her luck on not getting caught?
The "new evidence" on mental/psychological conditions. Whether the assessment was done at some time when the misconduct was committed, or after the charge was made?
If the medical evidence confirmed the OP's incapability of complying with academic regulations, it will support the uni's decision of not allowing a resit - given that the OP had difficulties in complying the rules on resit. Maybe ask for suspension to recover and return to uni until the OP is certified fit for complying with whatever academic regulations.

I understand your point, but I did have mitigating circumstances, including serious medical documentation from my doctor confirming that I was experiencing trauma and severe mental health issues at the time of the assessments. This evidence directly links my condition to the period in which the misconduct occurred, showing that my judgment and ability to follow procedures were severely impaired. The university’s own policies acknowledge that mitigating circumstances can impact a student’s ability to engage with academic regulations, yet they dismissed my case purely on timing, rather than genuinely considering the medical evidence. Given the severity of my circumstances, a more proportionate response—such as a suspension or capped resit—should have been considered instead of permanent exclusion

Much of this is true, but it would have held a lot more water for a fist offence. (I also assume that you're at least in your second year, where sanctions tend to be stricter, but that's not clear from your posts). I'm just making you aware that appealing on the grounds that you were impaired over two separate instances of misconduct is going to be tough, regardless of the uni's stance on taking a trauma-informed approach.
@gjd800 might be able to offer more advice if they are about, as they are much more familiar with appeals than me.
Edit: As an aside I've corrected the typo in the thread title to avoid anyone making a snide comment about it.

@gid800 The university’s own policies emphasize fairness, proportionality, and duty of care, yet my exclusion failed to consider how my trauma and mental health crisis impaired my academic judgment. Rather than assessing the genuine impact of my circumstances, the decision was based solely on the timing of my disclosure, disregarding well-documented evidence that trauma survivors often struggle with timely reporting. University regulations allow for discretion in sanctions, including proportionate penalties like suspension or capped resits, yet I was given the harshest possible outcome without proper consideration of alternatives. This approach contradicts the university’s duty to balance academic integrity with student welfare, making the decision both unfair and inconsistent with institutional policies.