Mr Derick Ansong-Nimo

 THE ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BOARD

PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE

In the matter of

DERICK ANSONG-NIMO (091631E)

Held via video conference on

23 – 24 June 2025

_______________

Present:

Neil Dalton (Chair)

Deborah Kirk (PCC Architect Member)

Paul Grant (PCC Lay Member)

______________

The Architects Registration Board (“the ARB”) was represented by Mr Lee Bridges, counsel, instructed by Kingsley Napley LLP (“the Presenter”).

Mr Derick Ansong-Nimo (“the Registered Person”) attended the hearing and was not represented.

 

Background

1. The Registered Person is a registered architect.

2. On 1 July 2024, the Registered Person was convicted, following a trial, at Chelmsford Magistrates Court of the following offence:

(1) On 2 May 2023 at Harlow in the County of Essex, assaulted [Person A], thereby
occasioning her actual bodily harm contrary to section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861

3. The Registered Person was sentenced on 10 October 2024 at Chelmsford Magistrates Court. The sentence imposed was a 24-month community order requiring 100 hours unpaid work. He was also required to pay CPS costs of £770. A restraining order was applied for but not made, the court finding that this was an ‘[…] Isolated incident. A restraining order is not considered to be necessary or proportionate. There has been a considerable passage of time since the commission of this offence without any further issues arising since.’

4. The background to the conviction is set out in the police documents and witness statements referred to under ‘Evidence’ below.

5. In summary, on 2 May 2023 an incident arose at the Registered Person’s home address. The police documents state that the victim is the Registered Person’s partner (referred to as Person A in these proceedings). The Registered Person and Person A share three children.

6. It is stated that on 2 May 2023, the Registered Person, Person A and their three children were at home. Person A walked the youngest child to school before returning home, where she asked her other two children to accompany her on a walk. The Registered Person forbade the eldest child from leaving the house. Person A left the house with the middle child and returned around an hour later.

7. On returning to the house, Person A saw the eldest child in the kitchen and asked him what he and the Registered Person had talked about whilst she had been out. The child stated that the Registered Person had informed him that Person A was trying to break up the family. The Registered Person was upstairs and began shouting to Person A that she was breaking up the family and he would take the children away.

8. Both children went upstairs. Person A also went upstairs where an argument ensued between her and the Registered Person in the bedroom in front of the children. She left the bedroom and began to walk downstairs. Halfway down the stairs, the Registered Person punched Person A from behind on the top/back of the head, causing her to fall down the stairs and land on the floor near the front door. It is reported that Person A may have blacked out for a few seconds at the bottom of the stairs.

9. The Registered Person then came downstairs and started to kick and punch Person A continually around her head, neck and face. He also pulled Person A’s wig off and began to pull out her hair.

10. Person A crawled to the front door, opened it and left the home. She collapsed on the ground outside the house. The Registered Person remained near the front door before leaving in his car. In her police statement, Person A reports that at least one of the children “saw most” of the assault.

11. A neighbour, alerted by the sound of screaming, including a child’s screams, came out to assist Person A and Person A telephoned the police. Police attended and Person A was taken to hospital for treatment.

12. The Registered Person was arrested that afternoon. He gave a ‘No Comment’ interview.

Registered Person’s Response

13. On 9 November 2024 the Registered Person emailed the ARB to notify them of his conviction. During a telephone call with the ARB on 11 November 2024, the Registered Person provided further information.

Admissions

14. At the outset of the proceedings the Registered Person accepted the fact of the conviction and that it had a material relevance to his fitness to practise as an architect.

15. The Legally Qualified Chair (LQC) announced that the factual allegation was found proved, both in respect of the fact of the conviction and its material relevance to the registered Person’s fitness to practise, by reason of those admissions.

 

Evidence

16. The Committee took into account the documentary evidence contained within
the agreed hearing bundle. This included:

i. Report to ARB;
ii. Memorandum of Conviction;
iii. Community Order 10 October 2024;
iv. Court Order 10 October 2024;
v. Police Report, 29 August 2023;
vi. Witness statement of Person A, 6 May 2023
vii. Witness statement of Person B, 2 June 2023
viii. Witness statement of Person C, 9 June 2023
ix. Witness statement of Person D, 9 June 2023
x. Photographs of injuries to Person A

17. In addition to the agreed hearings bundle, the Committee was supplied, pre-hearing, with the following materials:

xi. Statement of Registered Person, 2 June 2025
xii. Statement of Registered Person’s employer, 10 June 2025
xiii. Statement of Registered Person’s probation officer, 28 May 2025
xiv. Character reference from AM-B, 25 September 2023
xv. Character reference, from RB, undated

Decision on Sanction

Submissions

On behalf of ARB

18. In written representations on behalf of ARB, it was submitted that the nature of the conviction is extremely serious and called the Registered Person’s integrity into question.

19. It noted that the offence was one of violent conduct, and a conviction for such an offence was a very serious matter. Specifically:

i. The offending behaviour concerned violent behaviour and resulted in injury to another individual;
ii. The conduct took place in front of children and within the setting of the family home before then spilling out into a residential area;
iii. The assault was sustained. The Registered Person continued to assault Person A after she had fallen down the stairs by kicking her in the head/face area and pulling out her hair;
iv. The assault only appears to have stopped when Person A was able to escape the house and onto the street. Person A comments in her police statement that she recalls how scared she was during the incident.

20. Against this background, the ARB submitted the Registered Person’s actions brought the wider profession into disrepute and undermined the public’s trust in architects and the profession concerned. If a potential client, fellow architect or a member of the general public was made aware of the Registered Person’s conviction, they would be shocked and appalled by his behaviour.

21. The ARB invited the Committee to find that, by his actions, the registered person’s conduct was in breach of two of the Standards within ‘The Architects Code: Standards of professional Conduct and Practice 2017’ (hereafter, ‘the Code’), namely:

i. Standard 1.1
ii. Standard 9.2

22. Standard 1 of the Code is headed ‘Honesty and Integrity’. In particular, Standard 1.1 of the Code expects an architect to act with honesty and integrity at all times and to avoid any actions or situations which are inconsistent with their professional obligations.

23. Standard 9 of the Code is headed ‘Maintaining the reputation of architects’. In particular, Standard 9.2 expects an architect to act in a way which does not bring either themselves or the profession into disrepute.

24. It noted that the Registered Person had notified the ARB of his conviction and had cooperated with its investigation. He had no previous disciplinary history.

25. In supporting oral representations, the Presenter submitted that he was not making a ‘bid’ for any particular sanction, and that this was a matter for the Committee, taking into account the facts of this case against those factors set out in the Professional Conduct Committee Sanctions Guidance 2022. He submitted that the aggravating factors in the case were the fact that the incident occurred in a domestic setting where children were present, and the fact that there remained a lack of insight on the part of the Registered Person. He invited the Committee to note, in mitigation, that the Registered Person had notified ARB of the conviction and engaged with the process, and in addition that there were no previous disciplinary findings or criminal convictions recorded against him.

26. Finally, he drew the Committee’s attention to the fact that the Registered Person’s Community Order did not expire until 9 October 2026, submitting that the Committee should consider this against the background of the cases of Fleischman v GDC [2005] EWHC 87 (Admin), Khan v GPhC [2016] UKSC 64, and PSA v GDC & Naveed Patel [2024] EWHC 243 (Admin).

By the Registered Person

27. For his part, the Registered Person provided a written statement to the Committee outlining his background, the circumstances of the incident (from his perspective), and his ‘sincere remorse’. He also asserted his ‘commitment to upholding the standards of my profession’.

28. In his written statement, he said,

‘This incident has had a profound effect on me. I deeply regret what occurred and take full responsibility for my actions. I wish every day that I had found a different way to de-escalate the situation. What happened is not representative of who I am, and I am truly sorry.’

29. He described a background to the assault, where he had been the subject of previous ‘verbal and physical aggression’ by his female partner, Person A. He claimed that on the day of the assault, she had ‘physically assaulted’ him ‘again’, saying that ‘in an instinctive and defensive reaction’ he had ‘engaged physically’ and that ‘during the struggle [Person A had] sustained facial injuries’.

30. He continued,

‘This was an isolated and uncharacteristic event, provoked by sustained emotional and physical pressure. I am not seeking to excuse my actions, but I ask for understanding of the full context. I am truly remorseful and committed to ensuring that nothing like this ever happens again.

Broader Reflection on Domestic Abuse

I fully acknowledge the severity of domestic violence and support the vital work of authorities in preventing it. I recognise how difficult it can be for victims—especially male victims—to report abuse, and I hope my experience helps highlight that abuse in any form, from any party, should be addressed with support and seriousness.

Compliance with Professional Conduct Standards

I understand the seriousness of my position as a registered architect and refer to the ‘Architects Code: Standards of Professional Conduct and Practice:’

Standard 1: Honesty and Integrity

• I fully cooperated with police during the investigation
• I adhered to all bail conditions and court rulings
• I promptly informed my employer and the ARB of my conviction
• I have supported the ARB’s investigation and provided all requested
documentation

Standard 2: Upholding the Reputation of the Profession

• I have lived in the UK for over 28 years with no prior criminal record
• My clean DBS history prior to this incident reflects my law-abiding character
• This was an isolated, non-premeditated act during an emotionally volatile situation and provocative behaviour by [Person A]
• I have always strived to act ethically and professionally in both my personal and professional life […]’

31. In oral submissions to the Committee, the Registered Person drew attention to the fact that he had never offended before. He reiterated the context in which he had acted on this occasion, describing this as the incident which had ‘broken the camel’s back’, from his perspective.

32. As part of his ongoing programme of rehabilitation arising from his criminal conviction, he had now learned, he said, to ‘walk away from conflict’ and to address arising issues instead in a timely manner in the future, when ‘tensions were lower’.

33. He confirmed he had now completed his 100 hours of unpaid work, but that he was still undertaking the Building Better Relationships course and that he was still engaging with the probation service, which involved regular periodic meetings.

34. He said he had apologised to ‘everyone’ regarding the matter, and he asked the Committee to be fair and lenient.

The Committee’s Approach

35. The Committee took into account its finding that the Registered Person’s conviction was material to his registration as an architect and the submissions made by both parties. The Committee also took into account the Sanctions Guidance (SG) which states at paragraph 4.4 that:

“The interference with the architect’s right to practise whilst using the title ‘architect’ must be no more than necessary to achieve the PCC’s purpose of protecting the public and upholding public confidence in the profession and proper standards.” [emphasis added].

36. The Committee accepted the legal advice of the Chair. The Committee was mindful that the purpose of any sanction is not to punish the Registered Person but to protect the public and the wider public interest. The public interest includes upholding public confidence in the profession and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct and behaviour. The Committee applied the principle of proportionality by taking into account the aggravating and mitigating factors, weighing the Registered Person’s interests with the public interest, and considering the available sanctions in ascending order of severity.

37. The Committee was also mindful that a sentence from a criminal court is not necessarily a reliable guide to the appropriate sanction to impose bearing in mind the need within a regulatory context to ensure the maintenance of public confidence in the profession. In addition, the Registered Person would, in the course of his work as an architect, come into contact with members of the public.

Decision

38. In considering what sanction, if any, to impose in this case, the Committee reminded itself that the Registered Person’s violent, criminal behaviour resulted in injury to another individual. The victim, Person A, suffered bruising and hair loss. Given the specific nature of the assault (per paragraph 40 below), the Committee considered that those injuries could indeed have been significantly more serious.

39. His conduct took place in front of children and within the setting of the family home, before then spilling out into a residential area.

40. Moreover, the assault was sustained. Having punched Person A with sufficient force to knock her down the stairs, he then continued the assault upon her; kicking Person A repeatedly around her head, face and neck area, and pulling out her hair – all while she lay at the bottom of the stairs.

41. These actions were deliberate and vicious. By kicking and hitting a woman who was lying on the ground, they amounted to conduct affecting someone vulnerable. The Committee also noted that in the immediate aftermath of the assault the Registered Person demonstrated no concern for the well-being of Person A or the children present. These were aggravating factors.

42. A further aggravating factor was that the Committee was not persuaded that the Registered Person has sufficient insight in relation to this matter.

43. While he has expressed remorse, and the Committee does not doubt the remorse is genuine, and while he has provided the Committee with some of his reflective learning in relation to the incident; what he does not do is articulate any appreciation of how dangerous such an assault was to the health of the victim; the level of injury he was capable of causing her, first by knocking her down the stairs and then by kicking her around the head while she was on the floor. Neither is there any expression of understanding by him about how these actions might impact upon the minds of any child who witnessed them. Neither, equally, was there any indication by the Registered Person that he recognised how his criminal conduct could diminish the reputation and standing of his profession.

44. In tandem with those issues, the Committee noted the Registered Person had sought to characterise his actions in euphemistic language; framing the incident in terms that minimised his culpability. Thus, in his statement of 2 June 2025, he asserts that his actions arose as a result of ‘provocative behaviour’ by Person A whereby, in an attack upon him by her, he ‘engaged physically’ in an ‘instinctive and defensive reaction’. As for the injuries to Person A, the Registered Person does not expressly say he caused them, instead choosing to adopt the passive voice: i.e., ‘[During] the struggle, Ms A sustained facial injuries’. Using language in this way did not assist the Committee in finding he had sufficient insight regarding his conduct. In consequence, the Committee found that his insight remained very limited.

45. Turning to mitigation, the Committee noted that the Registered Person was a person of previous good character. Prior to this matter, there was nothing recorded against him and, since its occurrence, there have been no further such incidents.

46. It noted, too, that no restraining order had been imposed by the Magistrates’ Court, which characterised this as an ‘[…] Isolated incident’ , and which went on to say that ‘A restraining order is not considered to be necessary or proportionate. There has been a considerable passage of time since the commission of this offence without any further issues arising since.’

47. Likewise, the Committee had regard to the positive testimonials from different individuals in his community, as well as positive testimonials both from his employer and from his probation officer. Taken together, these suggest the Registered Person’s conduct in relation to this event, and the conviction which resulted from it, was out-of-character.

48. His probation officer, B.H., asserts that,

‘It is clear from our sessions that this conviction does not reflect the person Derick is today, nor the professional he has worked tirelessly to become. He has expressed remorse for his actions and has consistently demonstrated a sincere commitment to learning, growth, and accountability. Derick has made it clear that he fully accepts the gravity of the situation and is determined to rebuild trust, both within his profession and personal life.’

49. All of this is to the Registered Person’s credit. Further mitigating factors borne in mind by the Committee are that:

i. The Registered Person says he has apologised to his family;
ii. He has expressed remorse to the Committee; and
iii. He voluntarily notified the ARB of his conviction giving rise to the disciplinary proceedings

50. Set against these aggravating and mitigating factors, and bearing in mind the purpose of sanctions, the Committee then went on to consider which sanction, if any, it should impose.

No Sanction

51. The Committee first considered whether to conclude the case by taking no action on the Registered Person’s registration. In doing so, the Committee considered paragraph 6.1.2 of the SG which states:

“In rare cases the PCC may conclude, having had regard to all the circumstances, that the level of seriousness of the architect’s conduct or incompetence is so low that it would be unfair or disproportionate to impose a sanction. Where the PCC has determined a sanction is not required, it is particularly important that it is clear in its written reasons as to the exceptional circumstances that justified imposing no sanction.”

52. Exceptional circumstances are unusual, special, or uncommon. The Committee determined that neither the background to this case nor the specific circumstances that arose, could be properly characterised as exceptional. In reaching this conclusion the Committee was mindful that the Registered Person’s failings diminish both his reputation and that of the profession generally. The Committee therefore concluded that the Registered Person’s conduct was sufficiently serious for it to require the imposition of a sanction.

Reprimand

53. The Committee considered whether to impose a Reprimand. The Committee took into account the non-exhaustive factors as set out in paragraph 6.2.2 of the SG which indicate when a Reprimand may be the appropriate and proportionate sanction.

54. The Registered Person actions, in committing a sustained violent assault on a woman in their shared family home and in front of their children, was a very serious matter. In these circumstances, the Committee concluded that rather than uphold the Committee’s regulatory duty to protect the public, maintain public confidence in the profession, and uphold proper professional standards and conduct for members of the profession, a Reprimand would undermine these objectives.

55. Therefore, the Committee concluded that a Reprimand would be neither appropriate nor proportionate.

Penalty Order

56. The Committee considered whether the imposition of a Penalty Order would effectively reinforce the importance of complying with the high standards of personal conduct expected of architects. The Committee concluded it would not. In the circumstances of this case, the Committee took the view that a financial penalty would add nothing of materiality to the significance of public censure in the form of a Reprimand.

57. The Committee concluded that a Penalty Order would be insufficient to protect the public and meet the wider public interest given the nature and gravity of the Registered Person’s conduct and behaviour.

Suspension Order

58. The Committee next considered a Suspension Order. A Suspension Order would re-affirm to the Registered Person, the profession, and the public the standards expected of a registered architect. The Committee noted that a Suspension Order would prevent the Registered Person from using the title of ‘Architect’ during the suspension period, which would therefore provide a degree of protection to the public.

59. The Committee took into account the factors set out in paragraph 6.4.3 of the Sanctions Guidance which indicate where a suspension order may be the appropriate and proportionate sanction. Reviewing those factors, the Committee accepted that there was no evidence of repetition of similar behaviour since the incident. It also accepted that (taking into account, in particular, the comments of B.H.) there was some reason to conclude such behaviour might not occur again. However, the Committee’s confidence in this regard was significantly tempered by the incomplete insight it had identified on the part of the Registered Person. In this regard, the Committee reminded itself of the analysis of Andrew Baker J in Khetyar (at §49) which included the indication that, ‘[…] any assessment of the ongoing risk must play close attention to [that professional’s] current understanding of and attitude towards what he has done’. [GMC v Khetyar [2018] EWHC 813 (Admin)] The Committee considered that his behaviour was capable of being rectified.

60. However, the Registered Person had engaged here in extremely violent conduct in the manner described in paragraphs 38-41 above. In doing so, the Registered Person’s conduct involved a reckless disregard for his professional obligations as an architect. It was contrary to the requirements contained in Standard 1.1 and 9.2 of the Code. Clients, the wider public and fellow architects are entitled to expect the highest standards from individuals registered with the ARB. This applies to personal conduct within their private lives as well as their professional conduct. Violence by men towards women and girls is quite properly an issue of grave concern to the public. The particular manifestation of violence in this instance, coupled with the Registered Person’s still very limited insight (some two years after the incident), was capable, in the Committee’s determination, of significantly diminishing public confidence in the architects’ profession.

61. It concluded, therefore, that in light of these features the Registered Person’s behaviour is fundamentally incompatible with continued registration as an architect.

62. In these circumstances, the Committee concluded that a Suspension Order would not be sufficient to uphold standards of conduct and behaviour and maintain public trust in the profession.

Erasure

63. The Committee, having determined that a Suspension Order does not meet the wider public interest, determined that the Registered Person’s name should be erased from the Register. Erasure is a sanction of last resort and should be reserved for those categories of cases where there is no other means of protecting the public and the wider public interest. The Committee concluded that the Registered Person’s case falls into this category because of the nature and gravity of his criminal conviction, combined with the previously mentioned aggravating features. The Committee was also satisfied that any lesser sanction would undermine public trust and confidence in the profession.

64. In concluding that the Registered Person’s name should be erased from the Register the Committee balanced the wider public interest against the Registered Person’s interests including the consequential personal and professional impact erasure is likely to have upon him. However, the Committee concluded that these considerations were significantly outweighed by its duty to give priority to the wider public interest. Any sanction short of erasure would undermine rather than promote and maintain proper standards of conduct, as well as undermining public confidence in the profession.

65. The Committee determined that the appropriate and proportionate order is erasure. By reason of section 18 of the Act, the Registered Person’s name cannot be re-entered in the Architects Register unless ARB so directs. This would mean that should the Registered Person wish to return to practise as an architect, he would have to demonstrate that he is fit to do so by satisfying the ARB that he had completed his sentence and fully addressed the behaviour that gave rise to his convictions. In addition, the Registered Person would have to demonstrate sufficient insight into the impact and consequences of his conduct on the public and wider profession. The Committee concluded that this was an essential safeguard to ensure that the reputation of the profession is upheld. If the Committee imposed a suspension order, this safeguard would not be available and therefore such a sanction would not be appropriate.

66. The Committee directs that the Registered Person is not eligible to apply for re-entry to the profession until after the expiry of 2 years from the date of this order.

67. That concludes this determination.