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.

- 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October 2008; (7) the case is remitted by Consent Order of the High Court - 21 August 2009; and (8) the proceedings are withdrawn - 7 April 2010.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".

 Case Study 2 (continued - Part 13) - New Guidance - December 2010.

Case Study 2, Part 2 — A Question of Incongruity

Opaque reasoning of a PCC decision (Case Study 2 continued)

The proceedings so far in the case of I— S— (the subject of this Case Study 2, see above), have been such as to cause independent observers to have grave doubts about the justice of letting the professional standing and reputation of registered persons be subject to the acts and rulings of such a body as the Professional Conduct Committee, the respect due to the legal profession and others notwithstanding.

On 27 March 2007, at the end of the preliminary hearing held for the applications by I— S—, the PCC announced that they would take time to consider the matter and would deliver their written decision in due course. A month later, a copy of the decision was sent to I— S—, who is agreeable to letting it appear as part of the present case study. (The policy of this website is not to give names of the persons consenting to let proceedings against them appear as a case study: the aim of AARUK is stated on the home page.)

It is unlikely that the reasoning set out in the Committee’s decision will be found to be entirely clear, either on the face of it or on diligent scrutiny. In particular and among other things, there is some difficulty in seeing what meaning, in this context, the solicitor-chairman, together with the solicitor and architect sitting in judgement with him, intended by the phrase "onus of proof". This leads to the question: whether the Board, or its PCC, is entitled to throw upon any registered person (or anyone else) the onus of penetrating either the opacity of statements such as that, or, in other instances (mentioned passim elsewhere on this website), the doubtful congruence of the Architects Act and the general law with what has been claimed or asserted for the Board and published in various ways.

But a reader who has been following the case as a member of the public is likely to deduce that the next step is for the Committee to appoint a day for the hearing of the charge which this architect is defending; that the Committee members who will then hear the case, whoever they may be, will or ought to know that, in any such matter, they are bound to give a fair hearing to the case which the architect presents; that, as defendant, this architect is entitled to a hearing conducted and decided upon the presumption of innocence, including the presumption of acting honourably, in good faith, and in all respects according to the ethical and moral standards of professional persons; that for the Committee or its several members to do otherwise would itself be infamous; and that there is an onus on all members of the committee at the hearing of any charge to be unbiased and unprejudiced against the architect by previous decisions of the ARB or of the Committee.

Case Study 2 - continued

[ top]