Cheating is an unfortunate reality in exams, and addressing it is essential to maintaining the integrity and fairness of academic assessments.

There is growing concern that the scale and sophistication of the problem is increasing. The chief regulator of Ofqual, Sir Ian Bauckham, has recently warned of a 'growing threat' to exam integrity posed by emerging technologies. Devices such as smart watches, concealed earpieces and even smart glasses capable of projecting text into the wearer’s field of vision are becoming more accessible and harder to detect.

At a high level, the issue is not new. The misuse of mobile phones and other smart devices has been the most common category of suspected malpractice in every exam series since 2018. In the summer of 2025 alone, there were 2,225 reported cases. What is changing, however, is the nature of the risk. Technology is evolving faster than traditional invigilation methods, creating new opportunities for students to evade detection and increasing pressure on exam boards and schools to respond effectively.

Regulatory framework

Ofqual regulates qualifications, examinations and assessments in England. It was established under the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 and operates within the broader framework of the Education Act 2011. As education is a devolved matter, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own regulatory bodies.

The main exam boards recognised by Ofqual for GCSE and A level qualifications in England are AQA, Cambridge OCR, Pearson Edexcel and WJEC Eduqas. Cambridge International Education (CIE) once widely used in England, surrendered its Ofqual recognition in 2024.

Exam boards must comply with the requirements set out in the Ofqual Handbook: General Conditions of Recognition. These conditions impose legally binding obligations, including provisions relating to malpractice such as cheating.

In practice, exam boards often act collectively through their membership body, the Joint Council for Qualifications (JCQ). The JCQ publishes guidance designed to ensure consistency and compliance with Ofqual’s requirements. Its published resources are particularly useful in the context of malpractice, as they set out both investigative processes and indicative sanctions.

Cheating in an examination and the consequences

Where a test centre - typically a school - becomes aware of alleged, suspected or actual malpractice involving a student, it is under a duty to notify the relevant exam board without delay.

The subsequent process depends on the nature of the allegation. In more serious cases, the exam board will conduct a formal investigation. This may involve interviews with the student and relevant staff, as well as a review of physical and digital evidence.

If there is a finding of malpractice, the exam board will impose a sanction from those set out in JCQ guidance. These range from a warning or loss of marks for a question or component to disqualification or even a period of debarment from future examinations. A permanent record of malpractice findings is maintained and may be shared with other exam boards or relevant authorities.

JCQ publications include 'indicative sanctions' and anonymised case studies. One example involves a candidate who covertly photographed an examination paper using a smuggled phone and shared it via social media. Although there was limited dissemination and no evidence of use by others, the candidate received a 'loss of aggregation', meaning no GCSE grade was awarded in that subject. This illustrates that even relatively contained instances of misconduct can attract severe penalties.

An important feature of the JCQ guidance is that exam boards do not generally give significant weight to the consequential impact of a sanction on the individual student. This means that factors such as university applications or future career prospects are unlikely to mitigate the outcome. It is also commonly the case that any incidents of cheating will trigger disciplinary action by the student’s school under its own policies.

All exam boards operate formal appeals procedures for malpractice decisions. Beyond this process, there is the possibility of challenging a decision by way of Judicial Review. However, the court’s role in a Judicial Review of this nature will be to focus on assessing the lawfulness of the decision-making process, considering procedural fairness, rationality and consistent application of the applicable rules.

Looking ahead

Sir Ian Bauckham’s warning is a timely reminder of the need for vigilance. Test centres must remain alert not only to traditional forms of cheating but also to emerging technological methods that may be less visible and more difficult to detect. This may require updated training for invigilators, revised protocols and the adoption of new detection tools. As technology continues to evolve, so too must the regulatory and practical response.

At the same time, enforcement alone may not be sufficient. The sanctions available to exam boards are severe and can have lasting implications. Clear communication of these risks may serve as a meaningful deterrent. There is also a strong argument that more should be done not only to ensure students fully understand the risks and consequences of cheating but also to foster the importance of academic integrity and supporting students to succeed honestly.

 

Ane Vernon is partner at Payne Hicks Beach

Topics