Senate Awarding Panel - to be established from 12 October 2026

Senate Awarding Panel (SAP) provides assurance to the Senate that awards have been determined consistently, fairly and in compliance with University Regulations and Policy, and meeting requirements of external regulatory bodies such as the Office for Students. It supports the effective operation of Boards of Examiners across undergraduate, postgraduate taught and postgraduate research provision by providing proportionate, timely scrutiny of assessment processes and by identifying trends, risks and issues requiring institutional oversight.

• Membership
• Method of Operation
• Terms of Reference
• Responsibilities of the Institutional External Examiner
• Reporting Structure
• Secretariat
• Meetings
• Sub-Panel information

Membership 2026-27 - to be established from 12 October 2026

Chair (Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Education))	Professor Lorenzo Frigerio
Ex-officio:
Academic Registrar	Adam Child
Deputy Pro-Vice Chancellor (Education Policy)	Professor Andy Clark
Deputy Pro-Vice Chancellor (Education Quality and Standards)	Professor Will Curtis
Academic Director (Postgraduate Research)	Professor Jonathan Hickman-Heron
Academic Director (Postgraduate Taught)	Lee Griffin
Director of Education Operations	Dan Derricott
Faculty:
Chair(s) of the Faculty Education and Student Experience Committee (Arts)	Dr Marta Guerriero
Chair(s) of the Faculty Education and Student Experience Committee (Science Engineering and Medicine)	Dr Martyn Parker
Chair(s) of the Faculty Education and Student Experience Committee (Social Sciences)	Dr Karen Simacek
External:
Institutional External Examiner	Professor Steve King

The year after a member’s name indicates that their term of office expires on 31 July of that year.

In Attendance

Secretary Senior Policy Advisor (Assessment)	Dr Lynne Bayley
Assistant Secretary Policy Advisor (Assessment and Regulations)	Helen Hotten

Method of Operation

The Senate Awarding Panel will usually act through sub‑panels; decisions taken by such sub‑panels shall have the authority of the Senate Awarding Panel.

Terms of Reference

To approve:

1. Recommendations from Boards of Examiners and sub-panels for the conferral, retraction or correction of undergraduate, postgraduate taught, postgraduate research and posthumous awards, confirming that academic requirements for the award have been satisfied in accordance with the University’s regulations and policies. [SAASP] 

2. Recommendations by Heads of Department for the membership of Boards of Examiners for taught courses. [SESP] 

3. Recommendations for appointment and extensions to, and withdrawal from, the role of External Examiner for taught courses against the criteria laid down for appointments. [SESP] 

4. Arrangements for consideration of awards in cases where Boards of Examiners are non-quorate or External Examiners are unavailable. [SCSP] 

5. Terms of reference for Boards of Examiners. 

6. Criteria for appointment of External Examiners. 

7. Matters to be delegated to sub-panels of Senate Awarding Panel.  

To recommend:

8. To the Quality and Standards Subcommittee (QSS): proposals to clarify or amend regulations, policies, rules, conventions, criteria, guidance or process where recurring themes for taught courses arise relating to: 

a) assessment, progression and awards; 

b) the operation of Boards of Examiners; 

c) External Examiner arrangements. 

9. To the Postgraduate Research Subcommittee (PRS): proposals to clarify or amend regulations, policies, rules, conventions, criteria, guidance or process where recurring themes arise relating to postgraduate research awards. 

To receive:

10. From Boards of Examiners, the Doctoral College and Special Cases Sub-Panels: Recommendations for awards in the form of Decision Record Logs. [SAASP] 

11. From Boards of Examiners, the Doctoral College, Departments and Central Services: Cases relating to assessment, progression or award where: 

a) a definitive ruling is required on the application and interpretation of regulations, rules or conventions relating to assessment, progression or award. [SCSP] 

b) individual student circumstances mean that existing regulations, rules or conventions cannot be used to reach an outcome. [SCSP] 

c) a decision is required to retain or correct a published decision of a Board of Examiners. [SCSP] 

d) in the opinion of a Board of Examiners and its External Examiner(s), the application of regulations, rules or conventions would result in an anomalous outcome or manifest unfairness for a student. [SCSP] 

12. From Boards of Examiners: Recommendations for the award of an Aegrotat degree. [SCSP] 

13. From Student Records: Notification where a student has died prior to completion of their course, to recommend a posthumous award if appropriate. [SCSP] 

14. From Departments: Nominations for Boards of Examiners membership for taught courses. [SESP] 

15. From Departments: Recommendations for External Examiner appointment for taught courses or modules. [SESP] 

16. From sub-panels: Reports arising from sub‑panel scrutiny and approval activity including analysis of trends and issues in award outcomes, external examiner appointments and the membership of Boards of Examiners. 

To report:

17. To the Quality and Standards Subcommittee

a) identified trends, risks and issues relating to taught assessment, awards and progression; 

b) matters requiring policy, regulatory or procedural consideration, including any issues arising from the appointment of External Examiners or the membership, composition or operation of Boards of Examiners; 

c) issues requiring institutional escalation or clarification; 

18. To Postgraduate Research Subcommittee 

a) identified trends, risks and issues relating to research awards; 

b) matters requiring policy, regulatory or procedural consideration 

19. To Senate 

a) assurance that awards approved by the Panel provide a secure basis for the formal conferral of degrees. 

Responsibilities of the Institutional External Examiner

The Institutional External Examiner is a member of Senate Awarding Panel but will not normally be a nominated member of Senate Award Approval Sub-Panels or Senate Examiner Sub-Panels. The responsibilities of the Institutional External Examiner are as follows:

• Attend meetings of the Senate Awarding Panel

• Ensure that the responsibilities of the Senate Award Panel relating to oversight of students’ eligibility for an award are fully and properly discharged in accordance with the assessment conventions;

• Provide institutional oversight of the External Examiner reporting process by reviewing its effectiveness, sampling/auditing practice where appropriate, and providing feedback and recommendations for improvement.

• Receive the data regarding courses and cohorts and participate in discussions at the regarding course performance. These observations should be included in an Institutional External Examiner report;

• Provide advice and act as sounding board on the appropriateness of special cases or the University's approach to addressing the particular challenges presented as a result of or force majeure circumstances, if required;

• Report to the University on the effectiveness of the approach to assessment and the conduct of the Senate Awarding Panel and any matters arising in accordance with the University’s requirements for such reports.

Return to top

Reporting Structure

The Senate Awarding Panel has delegated authority from the Senate.

Click here to see a diagrammatic representation of the Committee Structure.

Return to top

Secretariat

Secretary: Dr Lynne Bayley, Senior Policy Advisor (Assessment)

Assistant Secretary: Helen Hotten, Policy Advisor (Assessment and Regulations)

Return to top

Meetings

The Senate Awarding Panel meets twice per academic year to; 

• receive and consider reports from sub-panel scrutiny and approval activity; 

• consider trends, risks and issues arising from award outcomes, Board of Examiner membership and External Examiner appointment approvals. 
• recommend changes to process, policy and regulations