Types of plagiarism (general online materials for Chapter 5).

Types of plagiarism

There are four main types of plagiarism.

a) Copy & pretend:

Straight-forward copying of another person’s work, including the work of other students (with or without their consent), and claiming that it is your own or pretending that it is your own:

R v Instan [1893] 1 Q.B. 450, per Darling J:

“There is no case directly in point, but the prisoner was under a moral obligation to the deceased from which arose a legal duty towards her, that legal duty the prisoner has willfully and deliberately left unperformed, with the consequence that there has been an acceleration of the death of the deceased.”

Plagiarised version:

“The prisoner in Instan was under a moral obligation to the deceased from which arose a legal duty towards her, that legal duty the prisoner has willfully and deliberately left unperformed, with the consequence that there has been an acceleration of the death of the deceased.”

Correct version:

“Darling J agreed with Lord Coleridge CJ in Instan (1893) who stated: ‘there is no case directly in point, but the prisoner was under a moral obligation to the deceased from which arose a legal duty towards her, that legal duty the prisoner has willfully and deliberately left unperformed, with the consequence that there has been an acceleration of the death of the deceased’.[1]”

b) Blend & forget:

Presenting arguments that blend your work with another person’s work, but not acknowledging the other person’s work and passing it off as your own:

Cottrell, S. ‘The Study Skills Handbook’ (2008) Palgrave Macmillan, at page 285:

“Critical thinking when writing includes most of the elements of critical thinking when reading. It can be more difficult to analyse your own work critically, however, and to recognize and admit to your own opinion and bias.”

Plagiarised version:

“Critical thinking when writing includes all of the elements of critical thinking when reading. However, it is very difficult to analyse your own work critically. Students find it difficult to recognize and admit to their own opinions and views.”

Correct version:

“Cottrell has highlighted a common problem encountered by students when incorporating critical thinking into university assignments. She notes that students find it difficult to analyse their own work critically and to recognize their own opinions.[2]”

c) Re-word & forget:

Paraphrasing (re-wording) another person’s work and not acknowledging the original writer of the work;

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1893] 1 QB 256, per Bowen L.J.:

“Was it intended that the 100I. should, if the conditions were fulfilled, be paid? The advertisement says that 1000I. is lodged at the bank for the purpose. Therefore, it cannot be said that the statement that 100I. would be paid was intended to be a mere puff. I think it was intended to be understood by the public as an offer which was to be acted upon.”

Plagiarised version:

“Was it intended that the 100I. should be paid if the conditions were fulfilled? The advertisement stated that 1000I. was lodged at the bank for that exact purpose. Therefore, it cannot be said that the statement that 100I. would be paid was intended to be a mere puff. It is submitted that it was intended to be understood by the public as an offer which was to be acted upon. This makes the advert an unilateral offer.”

Correct version:

“Bowen L.J. in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball (1893) noted that the deposit in the bank was an intention to be bound: ‘the advertisement says that 1000I. is lodged at the bank for the purpose. Therefore, it cannot be said that the statement that 100I. would be paid was intended to be a mere puff. I think it was intended to be understood by the public as an offer which was to be acted upon.’[3]Thus Carlill represents a unilateral offer to the whole world.”

d) Mixing-it-up:

Colluding (working with) other students and submitting either identical or very similar work.

Jamilia’s work:

“Lord Smith in Peters v Coombs (1945) stated that if a defendant does not see the consequences of his actions, he cannot be liable.[4] This is controversial as the earlier decision in R v Holley (1935)[5] perpetuated that a defendant who does not see the consequences of his actions but is reckless towards a dangerous consequence will find liability for his actions.”

Beebi’s work:

“Lord Smith in Peters v Coombs (1945) stated that a defendant cannot be liable if he does not see the consequence of his actions.[6] This would mean that a defendant would need to see the outcome of his act to be liable. This contrasts with the earlier decision in R v Holley (1935)[7], which stated that a defendant who does not see the consequences of his actions but is reckless towards a dangerous consequence will be held liable for his actions.”

Having seen these four examples of plagiarism, what are your thoughts? Do you recognise any from your own practice?

[1]R v Instan [1893] 1 Q.B. 450, per Darling J.

[2]Cottrell, S. ‘The Study Skills Handbook’ (2008) Palgrave Macmillan, at page 285.

[3]Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1893] 1 QB 256, per Bowen L.J.

[4] [1945] 1 All E.R. 879, per Lord Smith.

[5] [1935] 2 Q.B. 445.

[6] [1945] 1 All E.R. 879, per Lord Smith.

[7] [1935] 2 Q.B. 445.