Mr Alan Emmett Green

THE ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BOARD

PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE

In the matter of

ALAN EMMETT GREEN (097985F)

Held on:

26 – 27 August 2025

Via video Conference
_______________

Present:

Margaret Obi (Chair)
Stuart Carr (PCC Architect Member)
Alastair Cannon (PCC Lay Member)

_______________

The Architects Registration Board (“the ARB”) was represented by Mr Jean-Jack Chalmers, instructed by Kingsley Napley LLP (“the Presenter”).

Mr Alan Green (“the Registered Person”) attended the hearing and was represented by Mr James Lloyd of Mountford Chambers, instructed by Taylor Haldane Barlex Solicitors LLP.

 

 

Preliminary Matters

1. Mr Lloyd made an application for parts of the hearing relating to the Registered Person’s private life to be heard in private. The Presenter did not raise any objection to this application.

2. The Committee was satisfied that quasi-health related matters and personal matters relating to the Registered Person should not form part of the public record in order to protect his right to a private life.

Background

3. The Registered Person is a registered architect. The allegation made against the Registered Person is that he has been convicted of criminal offences other than offences which have no material relevance to his fitness to practise as an architect.

4. On the dates set out below, having entered guilty pleas, the Registered Person was convicted at Warrington Magistrates’ Court and Southend-on-Sea Magistrates’ Court of the following driving offences:

(a) 27 March 2023 of the offence of: ‘On 29/08/2022 at Daresbury drove a mechanically propelled vehicle, namely an Audi [Reg No.] on a public place, namely the car park of Creamfield music festival, without due care and attention’

(b) 27 March 2023 of the offence of: ‘On 29/08/2022 at Daresbury drove a motor vehicle, namely an Audi [Reg No.] on a public place, namely the car park of Creamfields music festival, when the proportion of a controlled drug, namely Benzoylecgonine, in your blood, namely greater than 200ug/L, exceeded the specified limit’

(c) 27 March 2023 of the offence of: ‘On 29/08/2022 at Daresbury drove a motor vehicle, namely an Audi [Reg No.] on a public place, namely the car park of Creamfields music festival, when the proportion of a controlled drug, namely Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, in your blood, namely not less than 2.2ug/L, exceeded the specified limit’

(d) 27 March 2023 of the offence of: ‘On 29/08/2022 at Daresbury had in your possession a quantity of cocaine a controlled drug of Class A in contravention of Section 5 (1) of the Misuses of Drugs Act 1971’

(e) 27 March 2023 of the offence of: ‘On 29/08/2022 at Daresbury had in your possession a quantity of Ketamine, a controlled drug of class B in contravention of section 5 (1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971’

(f) 25 February 2024 of the offence of: ‘On 25/02/2024 at Tiptree in the County of Essex drove a motor vehicle namely Toyota (Japan) MR2 [Reg No.] on a road namely Chapel Road while disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence’

5. The Registered Person was sentenced on 27 March 2023 at Cheshire Magistrates’ Court (sitting in Warrington). The sentence imposed was as follows:

i. Driving without due care and attention – No separate penalty
ii. Driving with Benzoylecgonin in system above specified limit – Disqualification for 3 years Fine: £780
iii. Driving with Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in system above specified limit Possession of Cocaine (Class A drug) – Disqualification for 3 years (concurrent) Fine: £780 Forfeiture and destruction of drugs
iv. Possession of Ketamine (Class B drug) – Fine: £520 Forfeiture and destruction of drugs

Circumstances of the 2023 Convictions

6. The Registered Person did not dispute the accuracy of the MG5 Police Report which states that at around 1pm on 29 August 2022, a police officer was on patrol at the Creamfields Music Festival. The officer was asked to attend at ‘exit 2’ where it was said there was ‘chaos’ due to vehicles being stuck in ditches and bumping into each other. The officer began organising vehicles into queues. It is said in the MG5 that the officer saw an Audi TT car facing away from the exit with its engine started. The officer allowed the traffic around the Audi to clear to allow the Audi to then turn towards the exit. The officer saw the Audi moving towards him and gave a stop sign to the driver (the Registered Person). The officer then saw the Audi move forward again and gave another stop sign, to which the Registered Person, who was driving, nodded. The car edged forward again and was again told to wait. The officer was then monitoring the traffic when he felt a hard bang against his right leg which forced him forward. The officer kept his balance and turned to see that the Audi had driven into him.

7. The officer approached the car and asked the Registered Person to turn his engine off. The officer instructed the Registered Person to reverse and park in a space behind the car, but the Registered Person failed to comply with these instructions and instead drove past the officer and through the open gate towards the road. Due to the volume of traffic, the Registered Person was not able to exit and became stuck in a queue of traffic. The officer followed on his motorcycle and blocked the car from exiting. The officer asked the Registered Person to exit the vehicle, but the Registered Person said, “I’m not getting out unless you arrest me.” The officer advised that he was going to be arrested. The Registered Person responded by closing the windows and locking the doors of the car. The officer drew his baton and told the Registered Person to open the door, or he would break the window. The Registered Person said, “someone shunted me from behind.” The officer instructed the Registered Person to get out of the vehicle which he did. The Registered Person was then arrested. The officer instructed the Registered Person to put his hands in front of him, in order to handcuff him. The officer repeated the instruction and warned that if the Registered Person did not comply then he would use his captor incapacitant. The officer then sprayed the Registered Person for one second into his eyes. The Registered Person ran away, jumped over a fence, stopped and turned around. He protested his innocence. The Registered Person was advised that if he did not return, he would be further arrested for escaping lawful custody. At this point other police officers arrived. The Registered Person approached the officer who then handcuffed him.

8. The Registered Person was requested to provide a roadside screening for cannabis and cocaine. The result was positive for cannabis. Following his detention, the vehicle was searched. A tin in the side of the driver’s door contained a green substance that looked and smelt like cannabis. During a search of the Registered Person, two snap bags of white powder were found within the Registered Person’s pockets. During a further search in custody, two small wraps containing white powder and a small silver spoon were recovered.

9. The police MG5 notes that the officer was uninjured, but had he not been wearing reinforced motorcycle boots the outcome could have been different.

10. The Registered Person was interviewed and stated that he was on a decline slope and looking in the mirror when the car went forwards half a foot accidentally. He said the officer was walking backwards towards the car. He says when directed to reverse and park he could not reverse due to traffic, so he moved forward to go to a clear spot. He says he ran away because he was sprayed in the face. In terms of the snap bags of white powder, the Registered Person said in interview that he picked them up off the floor. He accepted using cannabis but said this was the day before.

11. The MG5 states that forensic examination of the snap bags confirmed a total of 3 bags of ketamine (0.16 grams, 0.66 grams and 0.88 grams) and 1 bag of cocaine (0.23 grams). A blood sample taken from the Registered Person established the presence of Delta-9 tetahydrocannabinol (THC) levels of 2.2, Benzolecgonine levels of 50 and detected ketamine levels.

Registered Person’s Appeal

12. The Registered Person appealed his sentence (only in respect of the sentence of the three-year disqualification) on the grounds that the period of disqualification was excessive. The matter was considered at Liverpool Crown Court on 9 June 2023. The Court agreed to reduce the disqualification period to two years.

Circumstances of the 2024 Conviction

13. The Registered Person was moving a friend’s car that was blocking an access way when he was approached by the police and subsequently arrested.

14. On 29 April 2024, the Registered Person was convicted at Southend-on-Sea Magistrates’ Court of driving whilst disqualified, the offence occurring on 25 February 2024. The sentence imposed by the Court increased the Registered Person’s existing disqualification by 3 months, which had 11 months remaining.

Registered Person’s Response

15. Having had the matters brought to the attention of the ARB by a member of the public the ARB wrote to the Registered Person about his convictions. On 13 June 2024, he provided a response and also provided documents requested by ARB.

16. In his letter the Registered Person explained that at the festival he smoked cannabis and drank energy drinks on the Saturday. When leaving on the Monday, his car was parked facing the wrong way obstructing traffic from leaving. He stated that while trying to manoeuvre his car into the correct direction to exit (at less than 5mph) the traffic police officer directing the traffic said he had hit his leg. He stated the officer was fine and in no distress but told him to turn around and to go behind the out flowing traffic. The Registered Person stated this was impossible due to the traffic. He stated that he had no option but to drive forward at which point the police officer pulled him over. The Registered Person informed the ARB that after disputing that he had not intentionally hit his leg, the police officer arrested him. He provided a roadside specimen, which showed cannabis in his system. The Registered Person stated that he was later charged with possession of a controlled substance as there was a small bag found in some of the camping gear in his car. Whilst he was unaware of this, he took responsibility.

17. The Registered Person also stated in his written response that he was banned for a further 3 months after driving whilst moving his friend’s car which was blocking an access way.

18. The Registered Person expressed regret and stated he will not drive again until his ban is spent. He stated that the offences have no relation at all to his professional role as an architect. He is honest and values integrity as an integral part of being an architect. He holds the profession and his professional responsibility in the highest regard and will continue to do so. He stated that he employs 6 people and has never had a professional complaint against him. He explained that he is looking to employ a student under the apprenticeship scheme, which will be affected if he is removed from the ARB register. He informed the ARB that he has suffered extreme stress and mental fatigue over the years, working well over 70hrs a week to ensure his practice is run professionally, meets deadlines and clients’ needs. He stated that to date they have completed over 1,900 projects with no major issues or problems.

19. The Registered Person provided two testimonial letters from the criminal proceedings.

Admissions

20. At the outset of the proceedings the Registered Person accepted the fact of the convictions and that they had a material relevance to his fitness to practise as an architect.

21. The Legally Qualified Chair (LQC) announced that the factual allegation was found proved by reason of that admission and that the convictions were relevant to the Registered Person’s fitness to practise. The circumstances of the offences include driving into a police officer who was performing his public duties. The drugs offences include possession of quantities of Class A and Class B drugs. Furthermore, despite being disqualified from driving, the Registered Person decided to drive a friend’s car in defiance of the order of the Court and a warning by the Judge at his appeal that driving whilst disqualified is an offence punishable by imprisonment and “normally attracts a prison sentence”. The Judge stated: “Do not drive until that two-year ban has reached its end.” The Committee was satisfied that the Registered Person’s convictions are serious and demonstrate a lack of integrity. His actions brought the wider profession into disrepute and undermined the public’s trust in architects and the profession.

Documentary and Oral Evidence

22. The Committee took into account the documentary evidence contained within the hearing bundles which included:

i. Report to ARB;
ii. Memorandums of Conviction;
iii. Witness Statement of Sarah Atkinson (Solicitor at Kingsley Napley);
iv. Newspaper article dated 10 April 2023;
v. MG5 Police Report;
vi. Crown Court Transcript;
vii. Registered Person’s letter to the ARB dated 13 June 2024;
viii. Witness Statement of Registered Person dated 11 July 2025;
ix. Character references from a colleague and a close friend.

23. The Registered Person chose to give oral evidence. He adopted the contents of his witness statement. REDACTED AS PRIVATE. He took his niece and nephew (both adults) to the festival and ‘let myself go.’ REDACTED AS PRIVATE.

24. The Registered Person made it clear that he did not dispute the contents of the MG5 Police Report. He stated that he was ‘offered’ drugs (cannabis and cocaine) at the music festival but did not knowingly consume ketamine. He believed that someone had given him a spoon to administer the drug and for some reason he had kept it. He stated that he found the snap bags on the ground and picked them up with the intention of throwing them away. He did not know what drugs the bags contained. In relation to the driving whilst disqualified matter the Registered Person stated that he was arrested in the vicinity of a lake and woodland that he owns. He believes that the neighbours were concerned that he was planning to develop the site and had something to do with the police being present and parked in a nearby unmarked car when he drove his friend’s car. The Registered Person stated that the car had been left by his friend (who had been driven home by his girlfriend), and he moved it because it was blocking the access way.

25. The Registered Person stated that his senior colleagues know the full circumstances of his convictions and have been supportive. He stated that he has reflected on the ARB Code of Conduct and has integrated the principles into weekly meetings at his practice. He stated that he is ashamed of the impact of his behaviour on his business partners and staff and expressed awareness of the wider impact on public confidence. He expressed regret and remorse for his poor judgment.

Decision on Sanction

Submissions

26. The Presenter did not make a “bid” for any particular sanction. The Presenter submitted that the Registered Person’s convictions are serious. He invited the Committee to conclude that the Registered Person’s criminal offences, the pattern of poor conduct, and the risk of harm to members of the public are aggravating features. He further submitted that it is for the Committee to assess the weight to be attached to the Registered Person’s insight and remorse.

27. Mr Lloyd informed the Committee that the Registered Person deeply regrets the poor judgment which led to his convictions. It was submitted that the Registered Person takes full responsibility for his behaviour and is remorseful. Mr Lloyd invited the Committee to take into account the background circumstances and submitted that a Reprimand would be appropriate as the criminal sanction has addressed the public protection elements. In the alternative, he submitted that the Committee need go no further than a Penalty Order.

The Committee’s Approach

28. 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 considered 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].

29. The Committee accepted the advice of the LQC. 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. 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.

30. 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.

Decision

31. The Registered Person knowingly consumed illegal drugs and approximately 24-36 hours later drove a car with two passengers and, in so doing, put the occupants of the car and other road users at risk of harm. The Committee noted that the Registered Person’s vehicle came into physical contact with a police officer. Although the officer was not injured, the Registered Person’s actions exposed that officer to an unwarranted risk of harm. Approximately a year after being banned from driving the Registered Person chose to drive whilst disqualified. A disqualification is a court-imposed sanction, and breaching this order demonstrates a clear disregard for legal authority. The Committee noted that individuals who drive while disqualified do so without valid insurance, compounding the risk to other road users and leaving potential victims without compensation in the event of an incident. The act not only undermines the integrity of the justice system but also suggests a propensity for repeat offending, which the Committee concluded must be treated with considerable seriousness to deter similar conduct and protect the public.

32. The Committee acknowledged that the Registered Person’s offending behaviour occurred within the context of personal issues which, although not an excuse, does offer an explanation. The Registered Person is of previous good character. SL (a close friend) stated in his character reference that the Registered Person’s ”…integrity and reliability have always stood out in both his personal and professional life.” The Registered Person reiterated this during his oral evidence. The Committee accepted the Registered Person’s expressions of regret and remorse as genuine. The Committee also accepted that the Registered Person now understands that he ought to have made a self-referral to the ARB and that his failure to do so represents a negligent disregard for his professional obligations. It undermines transparency, delays necessary regulatory scrutiny, and erodes trust in the individual’s integrity and in the profession as a whole.

33. The Committee concluded that the Registered Person had demonstrated a significant degree of insight. His insight was not solely internally focussed. There was evidence before the Committee that the Registered Person had considered the impact of his convictions on his professional standing as an architect and the wider profession. In these circumstances, the Committee took the view that the underlying behaviour which led to the Registered Person’s convictions was unlikely to be repeated, not least because of the devastating impact his behaviour has had on himself, the impact on his colleagues and the steps he has taken to address the underlying behaviour which led to the series of errors of judgment.

34. In light of the above, the Committee identified the following as mitigating factors:

i. Early guilty pleas during the criminal proceedings and full admissions during these proceedings;
ii. Significant insight into the impact of the convictions on himself, others and the wider public;
iii. Genuine expressions of remorse and regret;
iv. Positive evidence of previous good character;
v. Difficult personal circumstances in the period leading up to the offending behaviour; and
vi. Appropriate remedial action to prevent repetition.

35. The Committee identified the following as aggravating factors:

i. The criminal offences were deliberate and were committed on two separate occasions. The driving whilst disqualified matter was a breach of a court order and a very clear warning of the potential consequences; and
ii. The behaviour exposed other road users to the risk of harm.

36. The Committee noted that there were many mitigating factors in the Registered Person’s favour. However, the Committee concluded that these factors were significantly outweighed by the aggravating factors. Furthermore, the mitigation did not adequately address the need to uphold public confidence in the profession, and proper standards of conduct and behaviour.

No Sanction

37. 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.”

38. 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. The Committee therefore concluded that the Registered Person’s conduct was sufficiently serious for it to require the imposition of a sanction.

Reprimand

39. 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.

40. The Registered Person actions in driving whilst under the influence of illegal drugs demonstrated very poor judgment as did his decision to drive on a public road whilst knowing full well that he remained disqualified from doing so. In these circumstances, the Committee concluded that rather than uphold the Committee’s regulatory duty to maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold proper professional standards and conduct for members of the profession, a Reprimand would undermine these objectives.

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

Penalty Order

42. 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 as it would not adequately address the regulatory objectives of deterrence and maintaining confidence in the profession.

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

Suspension Order

44. The Committee next considered a Suspension Order. The Registered Person’s conduct involved a reckless disregard for his professional obligations as an architect. 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. The Committee noted that a Suspension Order would prevent the Registered Person from using the title of ‘Architect’ during the suspension period, which would re-affirm to the Registered Person, the profession, and the public the standards expected of a registered architect.

45. The Committee took into account the factors set out in paragraph 6.4.3 of the SG which indicate that a suspension order may be the appropriate and proportionate sanction. The Committee took the view that there was no evidence of deep-seated attitudinal issues and acknowledged that the underlying behaviour is capable of being remediated. The Committee was also satisfied that the risk of repetition was low. In reaching this conclusion the Committee took into account the level and scope of the Registered Person’s insight and the impact on his professional life.

46. The Committee concluded that despite the nature and gravity of the Registered Person’s criminal convictions the low risk of repetition was sufficiently low to justify a Suspension Order. In these circumstances, the Committee concluded that the appropriate and proportionate sanction is a Suspension Order.

47. In reaching this conclusion the Committee balanced the wider public interest against the Registered Person’s interests including the consequential personal and professional impact a period of suspension may have upon him. However, the Committee concluded that these considerations were significantly outweighed by its duty to give priority to the wider public interest.

48. The Committee concluded that erasure would be disproportionate given that it had identified that a suspension order would be appropriate in this case.

Length of Suspension

49. The Committee concluded that the seriousness of the Registered Person’s criminal convictions requires a period of suspension sufficient to send a clear message to the public and the profession re-affirming the importance of maintaining the standards of the profession.

50. The Committee concluded that a Suspension Order should be imposed for a period of 4 months, which it judged to be the minimum necessary to both uphold professional standards and maintain the public’s confidence in the profession.

51. That concludes this determination.

 

.