A student may understand their assignment perfectly yet struggle to explain it in a fast, unfamiliar interview. Difficulty processing spoken questions, communicating under pressure, sitting for long periods or reading an inaccessible bundle can affect the quality of the evidence the university hears. Requesting adjustments is therefore part of preparing an accurate response to an allegation.
The request should connect the student’s functional needs to the interview arrangements. It need not concede misconduct, excuse every disputed action or disclose an entire medical history. A clear account of the obstacle and a practical proposed change the kind of concrete request that Dispute Resolution depends on gives the university something specific to consider before the meeting begins.
Separate participation needs from the underlying allegation
There may be two disability-related issues. One concerns what happened during the assessment, such as access to support or understanding instructions. The other concerns whether the student can now participate effectively in the misconduct process. Prepare them separately so an investigator does not mistake a participation request for an admission about the assessed work.
For example, asking for written questions alongside spoken questions says something about communication in the meeting. It does not itself show that an assignment was independently written, or that prohibited assistance was allowed. Keeping those distinctions explicit helps the panel evaluate both the evidence and the arrangements without confusion.
Identify the relevant framework
The Equality Act 2010 a core Human Rights & Civil Liberties statute contains the reasonable-adjustment duty, and section 91 applies a duty to the responsible bodies of relevant education institutions. Whether a particular measure is required depends on the circumstances; an existing examination adjustment does not automatically specify every arrangement for a disciplinary hearing.
Read the university’s disciplinary procedure and disability guidance together. Find out who decides requests, what information they need and whether the interviewer or panel chair has been told about agreed support. An adjustment recorded elsewhere in the university may still need to be translated into an operational plan for this meeting.
Describe the obstacle in practical terms
Instead of requesting “extra support”, explain what happens and when. You might need longer to process unfamiliar wording, experience fatigue after sustained questioning or have difficulty identifying who is speaking on a video call. Describe how that affects answering accurately and the changes that could reduce the difficulty.
Be specific about variability. A student might manage a short tutorial comfortably but struggle during a three-hour adversarial discussion. Another may be able to read ordinary notes but not an image-only PDF. These differences explain why general assumptions about classroom participation may not answer the needs of a misconduct interview.
Propose a workable set of adjustments
Options to discuss include an accessible bundle, questions delivered one at a time, scheduled breaks, a shorter session, written confirmation of complex questions or a suitable room. Some students may prefer remote attendance; others find it substantially harder. Select measures that fit the actual difficulty rather than requesting every possible adjustment.
Explain how each proposal would work. If breaks are needed, suggest their frequency and a way to request an additional pause. If a supporter will help identify overload, clarify that role. If written answers are proposed, address how the panel could ask follow-up questions while preserving the student’s opportunity to respond meaningfully.
Use proportionate supporting information
A support plan, assessment report or relevant professional letter may help explain established needs. Identify the parts that concern participation and ask how the information will be handled. Where evidence is outstanding, explain when it is expected and ask whether practical interim arrangements can be agreed meanwhile.
Do not ask a clinician to certify that an allegation is false or supply a conclusion outside their knowledge. Useful evidence describes symptoms, effects and recommended support. Where your needs have changed, explain that change rather than relying on an old document which describes a different level of functioning or a different task.
Consider companions and representatives carefully
Check who may attend under the university’s rules and what they are permitted to do. A companion who provides reassurance has a different role from a representative making submissions or a communication supporter helping the student understand questions. State the role requested and why it assists this particular student.
A parent should not automatically answer factual questions on the student’s behalf. Rehearsing a truthful explanation is helpful; replacing the student’s evidence with a parent’s account can create confusion. Where a communication difficulty makes ordinary questioning unsuitable, ask the university to agree an alternative method rather than improvising it halfway through the hearing.
Obtain confirmation before the day
Ask for a written arrangements note covering the format, duration, breaks, documents, support person and contact for difficulties. Confirm who will brief the chair and whether the same adjustments apply to any preparatory interview. An email saying “support is available” may leave crucial practical questions unanswered.
Test arrangements that depend on technology. Check captions, screen readers, document access and the video platform where relevant. Have a named contact if the link fails. Doing this in advance can prevent an avoidable technical problem being misread as unwillingness to participate or inability to explain the work.
When the proposed adjustment is refused
Request the reason and any alternative the university considers effective a disclosure expectation grounded in Public Law. The disagreement may concern the need, the proposed method or a perceived effect on the investigation. Respond to the actual concern. If written questions in advance are refused because follow-up questions cannot be predicted, simultaneous written questions may still address a processing difficulty.
Do not assume that refusal means you should simply fail to attend. Explain any resulting inability to participate, request reconsideration and seek advice on the available procedural route. If a postponement is needed, identify the outstanding decision and propose a manageable timetable rather than leaving the university uncertain about your intentions.
During the interview
At the start, confirm the agreed arrangements and how to request a pause. If an adjustment is forgotten, raise it promptly and calmly. Tell the chair what has happened and what is needed to continue. Where possible, ask the companion to note the time and the response so you can explain any subsequent concern accurately.
Do not feel obliged to guess because a question is difficult to process. Ask for it to be repeated, divided or put in writing as agreed. If you realise an answer was incomplete or misunderstood, correct it directly. Accuracy is more important than presenting a polished performance throughout a stressful meeting.
Assess the effect of any failure
Afterwards, distinguish dissatisfaction with the outcome from a participation problem. Identify which adjustment was agreed or requested, what occurred and how it affected a particular answer or opportunity to provide evidence. A detailed explanation is more useful than a broad claim that disability made the entire procedure invalid.
Check the decision and appeal timetable promptly. You may need to pursue an appeal about the finding while also raising a complaint about support arrangements. Ask how the university will coordinate those processes. Do not assume that a disability complaint automatically pauses an academic misconduct deadline or reverses a penalty.
Consider the period immediately before the hearing too. An accessible meeting is of limited assistance if the student cannot read the bundle or understand the deadline for responding. Ask for papers in a usable format early enough for preparation, and explain any support needed to organise a written statement. Where several university teams are involved, nominate one contact to confirm the agreed arrangements so the student is not repeatedly required to explain sensitive needs to each new administrator.
Preparing with Aldwych Legal
Adam Hussain is Aldwych Legal’s principal lawyer, Founder and Managing Director. His education law experience includes academic misconduct, disability disputes and university appeals. The firm can help turn support needs into focused requests, review whether the proposed arrangements enable a meaningful response, and connect any documented failure to the relevant challenge.
Students and parents in England and Wales can email the meeting invitation, procedure and support documents to info@aldwychlegal.com, or call 020 4584 2472. Aldwych Legal provides non-reserved legal services and works with appropriately authorised solicitors or counsel where reserved litigation or advocacy is necessary.
About Adam Hussain
Adam Hussain is Aldwych Legal’s Founder & Managing Director and principal lawyer. His education experience includes academic misconduct, disability disputes and appeals, with attention to practical support that enables a student to understand questions and explain their own evidence. He holds an LL.M. in International Business Law from King’s College London, has completed Bar training and Practical Legal Training, and is a PhD doctoral researcher in Legal Science at Royal Holloway, University of London.
