University of Wales Lampeter Newsletter

Student Rights & Whistleblowers UK

Bringing Light to Injustice and Maladministration

Student Support Site

Correspondence Concerning evidence submitted to the bishop of St David’s by the Secretary and Academic Registrar Dr D T Roderick

May 25th, 2008 · No Comments

Correspondence – Concerning evidence submitted to the bishop of St David’s by the Secretary and Academic Registrar Dr D T Roderick

Thursday, 10 August 2006 

To: The Bishop of St David’s 

Cc: Mark Williams MP

Re: Complaint against the University of Wales Lampeter. 

Proof that D T Roderick is a Serial Liar

I have received confirmation from the Information Commissioner concerning the FOI 2000 that he has forwarded all documents regarding my complaint which means the following documents do not exist although I have asked the ICO to confirm this point. 

  • The report that should have been sent by the then Chair of the IT Department Mr Tony Corner as part of the Student Complaints Procedure.
  • A copy of the complaint made on my behalf by Tony Corner to the External Examiner
    A statement from the Examinations Officer Dr Jill Venus concerning my complaint as she is required under the Examination Rules to put this in a log.
  • A copy of the independent assessment allegedly carried out by Tony Corner confirming the accusation of plagiarism made by Zed Zorichak.
  • A copy of the independent assessment allegedly carried out by Roisin Mullins confirming the accusation of plagiarism made by Zed Zorichak.
  • A copy of the External Examiners report was released and contrary to regulations the complaint by the then Chair of the IT Department is conspicuous by its absence. This is evidence of the collusion of the External Examiner in concealment of the intimidation during an examination. 

This also proves that claims made by D T Roderick and Zed Zorichak that the matter was dealt with by Tony Corner are a pack of lies. However as you have prevented me from bring Tony Corner as a witness this is all I have to go on. Moreover as you have unlawfully prevented me from submitting these facts it is proof of your involvement in the concealment of this matter. 

I will wait for confirmation from the ICO on the issue of the FOI, there is also a matter of failing to comply with the Data Protection Act and I am awaiting a reply on that issue.

It also proves the claim made by D T Roderick to my MP Mark Williams that there were two independent witnesses to the accusation of plagiarism is a pack of lies as Roderick has failed to provide the evidence in support of the allegation. 

Moreover so it follows that all the other evidence written by Pearce, Austin, Venus, and Zorichak and submitted by D T Roderick is also a pack of lies and is therefore inadmissible. Had you instigated some inquiry you would have discovered that fact.


Saturday, 05 August 2006 

To: The Bishop of St. David’s 

Cc: Mark Williams MP

Re: Further To Your Letter Dated 28th July 2006 – University Of Wales Lampeter 

You Only Have Your Own Stupidity to Blame for This Situation

There is one other major consideration which you seem to have failed to grasp and that is being set up as the fall guy!

Your actions in this matter have been based on the foolish and naïve assumption that the University was telling the truth and I was simply a disgruntled former student with a grudge because of a dispute over marking. 

As a result of the totally unfair, unjust and just plain stupid way you have dealt with this matter you have got yourself into a situation which you are now trying to get yourself out of by blaming me, and creating a situation so impossible that you are trying to force me to rollover and give up; that is not going to happen. Frankly as far as any sort of moral responsibility or civic duty toward your fellow man is concerned you would fail the test for citizenship to this country. 

You have in the past blamed D T Roderick for misleading you over this matter and that is where you should direct responsibility for this situation and not me. However it seems you have been prevented from doing that again by Eversheds under the direction of D T Roderick who is obviously setting you up to take the blame for his own misconduct. 

Eversheds have a legal duty to disclose to you all facts concerning this matter and they seem to have failed to do so; it is a matter of fact blatantly obvious to a child of primary school age that no plagiarism was committed and the claim by D T Roderick to my MP that there are two independent witness is nothing more than a pack of lies. They must know all this so why have they not told you? The answer is because they are only too happy for you to continue to make a total fool of yourself. 

Eversheds must also be aware that evidence has been fabricated by David Austin to conceal the gross misconduct of Zorichak and Venus and they have made threats of legal action without foundation again at tax payers’ expense for the personal liability of David Austin.

This together with the failure of Eversheds to neither deny or rebut my claims nor answer my inquiries is evidence that they too are part of the concealment of the wrong doing of office bearers whom they represent at tax payers expense. It is also evidence that they like you they have betrayed their obligation to the University preferring to conceal the wrong doing of staff and office bearers instead. 

You are a Bishop and I suggest with the greatest disrespect that you start to act like one and institute a full inquiry into this matter as you have the authority to do so, moreover, stop leaning on me to let you and others off the hook to avoid a public scandal.

With regard to the inquiry presumably you will take up my previous suggestion of three people, in which case I would be grateful if you would contact my MP and ask him to nominate someone to act on my behalf. Openness and transparency are required to resolve this matter and that is what you are trying to prevent happening. 

The University claims I have no independent evidence, that’s because you have gone along with their instructions to make sure I do not get any; despite the fact that such evidence does exist and so do independent witnesses who you are preventing from being involved. To make the stitch up complete you have also prevented me from calling expert witnesses. 

I also suggest you report Eversheds to the Law Society for failure to make a full disclose to yourself in order to conceal the wrong doing of the Secretary D T Roderick and staff at the University, they are also acting in a clear conflict of interest in this matter between you and them.

It is obvious that D T Roderick is feeding you false information and misdirecting you via Eversheds and they have obviously known this for sometime but like you they are afraid to face the truth of the situation they have been conned into. 

I think you will find that continuing to conceal this situation is not an option, so if you are going to make the excuse that yet again that you have been misled then you must either act on this matter or accept full responsibility for this situation and for D T Roderick; in which case you really do need professional help because nobody in their right mind would do such a thing?


To: The Bishop of St. David’s 

Cc: Mark Williams MP

Re: Letter dated 28th July 2006 – University of Wales Lampeter 

You seem to have failed to grasp the fundamentals of the situation which is as follows.

  1. That Zed Zorichak did without proof or foundation deliberately and falsely accused me of plagiarism in other words cheating as retribution for making a complaint against him.
  2. Zed Zorichak and Jill Venus obviously conspired to intimidate me during an examination whereby Zorichak sat less than six feet away and stared me out for an hour and a half.
  3. He and the University withheld documents that would have proved my innocence in a request under the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000 which is now the matter of a formal complaint.
  4. David Austin Robert Pearce and Thomas Roderick all lied to cover for Zed Zorichak.
  5. The evidence that the University submitted in inadmissible because it had been deliberately and unlawfully withheld under the DPA and FOI Acts. The fabricated “note” from David Austin is undated, not on headed note paper, and from correspondence he did not have time to send it when he said he did. In any event it is an admission that he failed to comply with the rules.
  6. You have a totally absurd situation whereby Thomas Roderick has told my MP that here are two independent witnesses to verify the accusation of plagiarism. So who are they? Where are their statements? I am using the FOI to force the information out of the University because such claims are a pack of lies.
  7. You found every excuse not to act on this matter for two and a half years
  8. You have unlawfully limited my complaint to prevent the disclosure of the above situation.
  9. You have also refused an independent inquiry to again prevent the disclosure of the above situation.
  10. I can only state the obvious that under these circumstances I am not going to get a fair hearing because you have deliberately and wilfully obstructed and perverted a course of public justice for students and deprived my of my rights in common law and the HRA 1998 to a fair hearing.
  11. I am not in a position to proceed with anything until the Information Commissioner has completed inquires relevant to a number of complaints.
  12. Meanwhile because of the concealment of gross misconduct by a number of office bearers and staff there is nothing the University can do about the content of the website which is publicising this matter. The number of hits as a result of searches for the Keywords University of Wales Lampeter is steadily rising and the number of students steadily falling. Bad news travels fast.
  13. To go back to the beginning, I am not required to answer an allegation that has no foundation, it is for the University to prove the allegation of plagiarism and they have failed to do so. It is not a matter of academic judgement it has to be a statement of fact, anybody using their eyes will see that the list of plagiarised websites is in fact a list of attributed quotes within the assignment. Moreover, I am entitled to say what I like in reply and intend to do so and publish it to the internet for the world to see. 
  14. These are staffing issues it is not for me as a student to compensate for the failure and concealment of management. In that respect any staff will use the website as proof that they are being victimised because if Jill Venus and Zed Zorichak can get away with it so can everyone else. Moreover these and other staff are in effect unmanageable.
  15. The University has got itself into a situation whereby it cannot take any form of legal action against myself or staff to resolve this matter and therefore it is technically insolvent as it cannot comply with its Articles of Government nor relevant legislation under the Charity and Company Acts.
  16. You have made it totally impossible for me to continue and therefore I have no choice or nothing to lose by going to the High Court for a Judicial Revue. But then that is what you set out to do, if not then resign and let somebody else sort out the mess that you have created.


To: Mark Williams MP

Cc: The Bishop of St. David’s
Robert Pearce
Thomas Roderick
David Austin
Connie Matera-Rogers
Jill Venus
Zed Zorichak
Tony Corner
Roisin Mullins

Re: Meeting with the University of Wales Lampeter

Dear Mark,

I am clarifying the points that you have raised from the meeting with the Secretary and Registrar D T Roderick on Friday the 14th of July.

Item 1 – This nonsense about a meeting is irrelevant.

This issue is about following stated complaints procedures that are on public display on the University website, any deviation from those by the University is a breach of contract. At no point do the procedures state that a student is required to attend meetings for the purpose of being fobbed off. What they do state is that reports should be sent in very strict time limits and that is what the University failed to do to ensure my complaint would not be heard.

10th October 2003. This is in response to not receiving a reply according to the rules for a formal complaint made on the 30th of June and another complaint on the 29th of September 2003.

‘Dear Tony,

It is now well past the ten days specified for the reply to a formal complaint. For reasons that are contained in my complaint I have not been able to continue my studies at UWL. I cannot let this situation continue and therefore I must press you for either a reply or interim statement. I appreciate your position as point of contact and this is not aimed at yourself.

This is to notify you that the absence of any reply will mean that I have lost total faith and trust in the University’s ability to address the issues that I have raised’

To put an end to Prof Austin’s game of cat and mouse to avoid compliance with the rules I sent this on the 24th November 2003. Under the rules I should have received a report by the 20th of October.

‘Dear Professor Austin,

I am pleased to say that all complaints are now for your consideration under the University Complaints Procedure. I wish to point out that I am not obliged to attend any meeting and simply wish for a written statement as to whether they have been upheld or dismissed.’

I have since discovered that this is what Prof Austin considers to be malicious harassment!

On the 2nd of December 2003 I received a letter from the Vice Chancellor telling me that all my complaints had been thoroughly investigated, I had failed to attend a meeting to give oral evidence, and that I had received a report from Prof David Austin and the matter was closed refusing to enter into any further correspondence. 

You are aware that a complainant agreeing to anything outside of procedures loses the right to then complain that procedures were not followed. That is why I stuck to procedures and insisted upon a report which has now by the divine intervention of the Bishop miraculously appeared two and a half years later! 

The pathetic claim that it was sent in November 2003 is proof by their own admission procedures were not followed as previously stated it should have been sent by the 20th of October.

Prof David Austin was going to stitch me up whatever I did, he did not know what to do and the enormity of what Zed Zorichak had done was too much for him. He lacked the spine to take any action; he betrayed the trust of students that went with the job. The issue of meetings is a red herring to conceal his failure to act at the end of September 2003 and his own personal inadequacies as a failed Head of School and member of the human race.

Item 2 – ‘Independent’ assessors? 

The claim made by Thomas Roderick that the accusation of plagiarism was independently assessed and supported by two other lecturers is proof that you are being lied to. He has got himself into a situation and he is trying to bluff his way out of it with a pack of lies. Who would think that this pillar of society would do such a thing? And the answer is most people who work at the University! 

Simply use your eyes you look at the list of so called plagiarised web sites, and then look at the assignment to see that it is in fact a list of attributed quotes! A child of primary school age would be able to undertake this task and come to the conclusion that there was no plagiarism. 

It’s a bit like bringing in the greatest mathematicians in the world to confirm that 2 + 2 = 5. However, if these ‘independent’ assessors named by Zed Zorichak and supported by David Austin and Thomas Roderick as Tony Corner and Roisin Mullins would like to support him on this issue then go ahead make my day. I know that they are not going to because Zed Zorichak is telling lies. Claims are being made on their behalf that they are probably not fully aware of, they may have agreed to the mark which is not in dispute but they may not know about the issue of plagiarism.

This explains why I am being denied access to witnesses to make sure they do not find out what is being said on their behalf and to prevent me using any evidence they may have against the University. Since my complaint on this issue at the end of September 2003 David Austin has known that this accusation of plagiarism is untrue. While he knows he is personally liable for his actions in the matter that has not stopped him from helping himself to free legal advice at public expense and that raises the small matter of fraud.

He has concealed my complaint because of the damage it would do if it was made public because the entire Federal University would end up an academic laughing stock. So he is only too happy to let Zed Zorichak carry on abusing students in order to keep their reputation in tact; after all he is an abuser of the highest standards in the University sector. Although the term ‘pervert’ might be a more appropriate name and more commonly understood.

You have to ask yourself why is it I am in an absurd and bizarre situation of having to make a complaint to the Information Commissioner to obtain incrementing evidence against myself! You would have though they would be only too happy to hand it over. It’s just a symptom of the concealment you are up against because normally they would be offering such evidence as proof; not doing their best to hide it. 

But then this is another game, they make the allegations and then hide the evidence so you cannot disprove what they are saying. The University is putting the cart before the horse; they are making the claim of plagiarism therefore, they must prove it with evidence; not hide the evidence away because it will not stand up.

Zed Zorichak is proof that you can take a ‘psycho’ off the street and call them a University lecturer. 

Item 3 – No hearing is yet taking place. 

The Bishop is doing what he is told and in that respect will not investigate the time of day let alone these allegations, because like anybody else he will come to the conclusion they are true. I am simply collecting evidence which he is very kindly providing me with; clearly the University does not take him seriously in this matter either as they obviously consider him stupid enough to believe anything they say. 

I have confirmed to the Bishop that I do not consider his arrangements for this hearing to comply with my rights in common law and under the Human Rights Act 1998 and will not make any submission until they do. Therefore no formal hearing is as yet taking place. 

Once Zed Zorichak has been shown up as the liar he is then the rest of this sad story falls into place as does its resolution! 

However given the brick wall of obstruction placed by office bearers covering their own tracks, and the refusal of the Bishop to carry out any independent inquiry, this may take some time. Meanwhile I will continue to pursue this matter by the only means possible. 

I have not heard anything from Eversheds in reply to my numerous requests for clarification and copies of their evidence. I assume this is because they have probably looked at my assignment and realised that no plagiarism has been committed, therefore, they are powerless to do anything to protect the University which is a valuable resource to the people of your constituency.

As I have already explained this is because Eversheds have got themselves into a situation of protecting the wrong doers and not the University as a corporate body. I can say what I like in reply to a false and libellous allegation and intend to do so via the internet to warn off prospective students, and until the Bishop agrees to an independent inquiry then he will have to take the consequences.

However, you must appreciate that it is not just myself that has been on the receiving end of this sort of injustice and any inquiry should be open to others to have their grievances heard.

Tags: Correspondence