Contents

- Judicial interpretation relating to Part III : some useful guidance on the meaning of "standards", "serious" and "unacceptable".

- Discipline and questionable PCC decisions : powers, duties and criticisms of the PCC.

- Case Study 1 : procedural irregularities and two perverse decisions in consideration of charges brought under Code Standard 8.

- Case Study 2 (Part 1)  : a similar case, involving the apprehension of a real possibility of bias.

- Case Study 2 (continued - Part 2) : the PCC decide – and a question of incongruity arises. 

- Note on Part III of the Architects Act 1997 - should the legislation be further amended to save the Board from the charge of jactitation of power?

- Case Study 2 (continued - Part 3) - QC advises that the architect has an obvious and complete defence.

- Case Study 2 (continued - Part 4) - "Judicial nonsense".

- Case Study 2 (continued - Part 5) - A Court decision in favour of the architect.

- Case Study 2 (continued - Parts 6, 7 and 8) - (6) The Court rules architect's application for judicial review "plainly justified" - 14 October 2008; (7) the case is remitted by Consent Order of the High Court - 21 August 2009; and (8) the proceedings are withdrawn - 7 April 2010.

- Case Study 2 (continued - Parts 9 and 10) - Report on outcome of proceedings.

- Case Study 2 (continued - Part 11) - How the Board deals with the result.

 Case Study 2 (continued - Part 12) - ARB misclaims "new evidence".

(11) The architect's open letter for openness. 

Following the Note in Part 10 of this case study (see above), after reading an open letter which the architect has addressed to the Board chairman, this contributor (in the few days before the Board meeting) remains hopeful that the Board will not fail to heed the correspondent who is reported as writing: "I realise I have to pay for the ARB's past reading of the Act, but I don't at all want to pay for them to repeat their mistake".  The letter referred to is reproduced here.

(12) ARB misclaims "new evidence"

The ARB has now (June 2010) disclosed documents in response to a Freedom of Information Act inquiry which confirm that its spokesperson was in error when informing a reporter for the professional press (AJ) that there had been "new evidence" as a reason for withdrawing the allegation at the hearing on 7 April 2010.

It is difficult for an independent observer who has had the benefit of reading all of the documents produced by the ARB in response to the inquiry, and who has seen the transcript of the hearing (and who had been present at that and the previous hearings), to put on the ARB's claim a construction other than that it was due to the maker's ignorance, if it was not due to dissembling with intent to avoid the consequences of the unwelcome fact that the architect (I—S—) had shown the allegation which the ARB had made against him to be without foundation.

As reported in Part 9 of this case study the architect's challenge had been to the validity of the revised Code Standard 8 introduced by the ARB in November 2001 and the attempt to use disciplinary proceedings to enforce it.

Part 10 remarked that it must be at least as well known to the Registrar as to this contributor that the architect's solicitor had made the clear and uncontradicted statement that the point at issue had been "not a question of reasonableness but one of legality”. If the ARB is now to proceed in a manner which is legally, morally and ethically acceptable, it should be properly informed.

[ top]