Decision of the Professional Conduct Committee, 11 January 2006.
(With links to the appropriate parts of the application)
Chairman: Mr Peter Verdin
I will deal with the preliminary points before I deal with the application itself.
Prejudice
I reiterate that the PCC is an independent Committee set up by statute viz. the Architects Act 1997. The Act provides that the Committee is constituted of various people, some of whom could be members of the Board. I make it clear that none of the members of this Committee is a member of the Board and are not privy to any decisions of the Board other than those made public. It is worth pointing out that Mrs Saunders stood down from this committee at the request of the defendants.
The Investigation Rules provides that no member of the Investigations Committee which has dealt with an investigation of a person may sit on the Conduct Committee dealing with changes against that person. Rule 5(b). I mention this because that was the point of Re: P (a barrister) where there was no prescribed separation of the investigator and disciplinary committee memberships.
The common interest point is not accepted. The PCC has a different function to the Board and it carries out that function independently and will always form its own views.
Applications
1) The legal advice is not before us. Mr Cadman will make his own points to the Committee and the Committee will decide on the merits of his and the defendants’ arguments.
I make it clear that none of us have seen that evidence.
Reference to that advice being binding on the committee is based on a misconception of the independent function of the Committee. We will listen to the submissions and arguments and decide on the merits of the arguments.
2) We will disallow evidence that is irrelevant or otherwise not properly admissible but subject to that it is up to Mr Cadman to decide what evidence he puts forward to support his case. It is open to the defendant to object to any evidence when it is put forward and we will then decide if it is admissible.
3) That the proceedings be quashed. This application is based on the power of the Board to make regulations to promulgate standards and to monitor adherence to the regulations and standards.
We have concluded that the Board does have the powers which have been challenged. The Board’s position is set out in paragraphs no. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of a letter to Mr Ian Salisbury dated the 27 June 2002 written by Robin Vaughan and we adopt these paragraphs. They are a concise summary of the powers under which the Board appear to have acted.
The defendants have submitted that ‘ticking the box’ on ARB’s Statement of Compliance is ‘wholly unrelated to the practice as an architect.’ Practice as an architect does not just extend to dealing with clients. It is reasonable for the Board to require architects to carry insurance and it follows that the Board are entitled to make provision for monitoring that requirement - standard 8.3 deals with this.
Whether there has been a complaint by a third party has no relevance. The PCC only hear complaints from the Board. There is nothing in the Act which prevents the Board from bringing a complaint of its own volition provided it has a proper foundation.
We have been quoted on opinion from RIBA (at paragraph 11 of the submission). We do not accept this interpretation of Act. We have formed the view that the Act gives the Board both the power to introduce a requirement for insurance and its methods of monitoring that requirement.
As to the burden and standard of proof it is somewhat early to deal with this but since it has been raised we will deal with it. The burden of proof is on the prosecutor. The standard which applies in this Committee is the civil standard of ‘the balance of probabilities’ and we accept the decisions of the courts that the more serious the allegations the more cogent must be the evidence. There are various cases on this, the most recent being one involving the GMC.
Reference is made to paragraph 20 of the submissions. The views of the Board are of no interest to us. We are independent of the Board and come to our own conclusions.
Whether the Board is a regulator or not is a matter of semantics. We are concerned with what powers and duties have been given to it by statute. It is quite right for the defendants to say that the Board can’t give an authoritative ruling on a disputed point of law. That is one of the functions of this committee and that is what we have done.
We make no ruling at this stage on facts because we have heard no evidence. This decision merely deals with the preliminary application.
[back]