Decision announced in Hall matter

23 December 2003

The Vice-Chancellor of the University of New South Wales, Professor Rory Hume, today released his decision in relation to the outstanding allegations of misconduct against Professor Bruce Hall.

The Vice-Chancellor was required to consider the allegations under the terms of the University of New South Wales (Academic Staff) Enterprise Agreement 2000 and its successor the University of New South Wales (Academic Staff) Enterprise Agreement 2003. For simplicity these are referred to below as the 'Enterprise Agreement'.

In announcing the decision, Professor Hume considers that the processes required to be followed by the University in relation to the allegations against Professor Hall, and the complexity of the issues involved, should be clearly understood. The background to this matter is therefore set out in some detail below, and the Vice-Chancellor's full report is available to the media, on the University website, simultaneous with this release.

Background

Professor Hall is a Professor of Medicine at UNSW, and head of a research laboratory attached to Liverpool Hospital. He is a world-renowned nephrologist, whose research has focused on tolerance in transplantation and autoimmune disease in the kidney.

The University received a number of complaints against Professor Hall between September 2001 and January 2002. The complaints were treated as protected disclosures, under the terms of the Protected Disclosures Act 1994 (NSW).

Professor Bruce Dowton, Dean of Medicine at UNSW, carried out an initial assessment of the complaints. Professor Elspeth McLachlan, the University's Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research) conducted a parallel inquiry, focussing on complaints that had been raised with the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC).

Professors Dowton and McLachlan reported on the outcomes of their inquiries in April 2002. Both indicated that they were unable to report conclusively on some matters of alleged scientific fraud/scientific misconduct. The then Vice-Chancellor, Professor John Niland, subsequently announced that the University would establish an external independent inquiry to investigate these matters further. The inquiry was formally convened in June 2002 and was headed by a former Chief Justice of the High Court, Sir Gerard Brennan. The report of the External Independent Inquiry (EII) was handed to the University on 31 January this year.

For the purposes of commencing the process under the Enterprise Agreement for dealing with allegations of misconduct or serious misconduct, the report of the EII was referred to Professor Stephen Deane, Head of Surgery at the Liverpool Hospital, as Professor Hall's academic supervisor. The Enterprise Agreement sets out a detailed procedure to be followed in cases of such allegations: the University is only permitted to take disciplinary action against an academic (if that is ultimately determined to be an appropriate course) if the process under the Enterprise Agreement is complied with.

Professor Deane was required to determine whether the Brennan report gave rise to any allegations of misconduct or serious misconduct as defined in the Enterprise Agreement (as distinct from the terms of reference for the EII - which was asked to determine whether there had been 'scientific misconduct'). If so, he had to determine whether the allegations could be resolved through guidance, counselling, conciliation or other appropriate action. If he did not consider that it was appropriate to resolve the allegations through any of these means, or he determined that they could not be resolved in that way, he was required to prepare a report to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor.

Professor Deane on 17 March this year provided a report to Deputy Vice-Chancellor Professor Mark Wainwright. Professor Wainwright was required under the Enterprise Agreement to determine if the allegations warranted further investigation and if so, he was required to notify Professor Hall of the allegations in detail.

Based on Professor Deane's report and the report of the EII, Professor Wainwright identified 12 outstanding allegations against Professor Hall, which he believed warranted further investigation. Professor Hall was given the opportunity to respond to those allegations. Following consideration of Professor Hall's response, and his own investigation, Professor Wainwright decided that in relation to six allegations, there was no misconduct or serious misconduct. In relation to the remaining six allegations he was unable to reach a finding that there was no misconduct or serious misconduct, this being the applicable test under the Enterprise Agreement.

Professor Wainwright advised Professor Hall in writing of the outcome of his investigation on 14 October. Under the terms of the Enterprise Agreement Professor Hall had the option of having the matter referred to a misconduct investigation committee, to an investigator, or directly to the Vice-Chancellor. He elected to have the matter referred directly to the Vice-Chancellor.

Professor Wainwright provided his report to the Vice-Chancellor on 20 November. The Vice-Chancellor carefully considered that report and the further written response to it from Professor Hall. The Vice-Chancellor also sought advice from two specialists in the area of autoimmunity and transplantation research.

Findings

The Vice-Chancellor has found Professor Hall guilty of misconduct, but not serious misconduct, in relation to five of the six allegations before him. He has found no misconduct in relation to the remaining allegation.

In reaching these findings, the Vice-Chancellor has applied the definitions of misconduct and serious misconduct as contained in Enterprise Agreement and with reference to the guidelines for the conduct of scientific research agreed between the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Australia Vice-Chancellors' Committee (the NHMRC/AVCC Guidelines).

The Vice-Chancellor was required to consider whether any of the forms of disciplinary action permitted under the Enterprise Agreement should be taken against Professor Hall. In relation to two of the allegations where misconduct was found he censures Professor Hall. In relation to three of the allegations where misconduct was found he has decided that disciplinary action is not warranted.

In reaching these decisions, the Vice-Chancellor has taken into account the degree of the misconduct found, and mitigating circumstances, where relevant.

The Vice-Chancellor's report is available here.

Professor Hume said today: "This has been a long and very difficult process. It should be understood that the University was required, in investigating these complaints, to comply with the provisions of Enterprise Agreement, if any disciplinary action was to be taken.

"The priority for the University throughout this process has been to arrive at a fair and just conclusion while observing its legal obligations to the complainants and Professor Hall.

"The issues involved in the allegations made against Professor Hall were highly complex. They have been investigated thoroughly and carefully.

"Under its terms of reference, the Brennan Inquiry was asked to make a determination on the allegations of scientific misconduct. The Inquiry was not asked to, and did not, make any recommendations as to what action should be taken as a result of its determinations.

"My task, in relation to the six allegations referred to me by Professor Wainwright, was to determine whether misconduct or serious misconduct had occurred, if so, the severity of the misconduct, and the appropriate action to be taken.

"I believe relative to some of the allegations that came to me that Professor Hall committed errors and misjudgements. While there were some mitigating circumstances, in this case illness and pressure of work, my findings were sufficiently serious to warrant action, namely censure, in two cases.

"I do not believe, relative to any of the allegations that came to me, that Professor Hall was guilty of scientific misconduct. None of my findings struck at the heart of Professor Hall's science, or questioned the validity of his science, and none warranted consideration of dismissal, in my carefully considered view.

"In coming to my decision, I very carefully considered the report of the Brennan Inquiry in relation to the allegations before me. I also very carefully considered the submissions made by Professor Hall in response to the allegations, which included the written views of a number of leading academics. I sought further scientific advice from specialists in the area of autoimmunity and transplantation research. As stated in my report, in the case of the two academics I approached directly, the purpose of seeking this advice was to assess the severity of the misconduct that I had otherwise found to be established. I also took into account a number of mitigating circumstances that I believe were relevant to this assessment.

"I am confident that this decision is a fair and just conclusion. I take this opportunity to thank Sir Gerard Brennan and the other members of the external inquiry for the care and rigour with which they conducted that inquiry, and to the officers of the University who have assisted in this process," Professor Hume said.


CONTACT DETAILS: Judy Brookman, UNSW Media unit, tel. 9385 3249, mobile 0421 061 251; email j.brookman@unsw.edu.au