Mr David Bell

THE ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BOARD

PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE

In the matter of

DAVID WILSON BELL (050051H)

Held as a virtual hearing on:

20-21 January 2026

_______________

Present:

Martin Winter (Legally Qualified Chair)
Stuart Carr (PCC Architect Member)
Alastair Cannon (PCC Lay Member)

_______________

 

The Architects Registration Board (“ARB”) was represented by Ms Yasmin Omotosho (“the Presenter”) instructed by Kingsley Napley LLP.

Mr David Bell (the “Registered Person”) attended the hearing and was not legally represented.

 

 

Allegation (as amended)

1. The Registered Person faces an allegation that;

 

He has been convicted of a criminal offence, other than an offence which has no material relevance to his fitness to practise as an architect, in that he was convicted on 8 May 2025 of Embezzlement

 

2. The fact of the convictions was evidenced by a certificate of conviction from the Edinburgh Sheriff Court. The Registered Person pleaded guilty to the offence on 8 May 2025 and was sentenced on 6 June 2025 to a 225-hour community payback order to be completed within 12 months and a compensation order of £160,998 to be paid within 12 months.

 

3. The Registered Person notified ARB of the conviction on 9 June 2025.

 

 

Background

 

4. In January 2012, Person A, the Registered Person’s sister, was diagnosed with dementia and classified as an adult with incapacity. Subsequently, in April 2012, the Registered Person and his wife were granted power of attorney, providing them with full control over Person A’s assets and bank accounts.

 

5. Concerns regarding the management of Person A’s finances emerged in December 2018 when the Registered Person contacted Edinburgh City Council to request assistance with care fees. This request prompted a review by a community care assistant, who questioned the need for financial help in light of the Council’s previous understanding of Person A’s estate value.

 

6. On 25 September 2019, the community care assistant conducted a meeting with the Registered Person. Following this discussion, a formal referral was made to the Office of Public Guardianship, citing concerns about the handling of Person A’s estate. An investigation by an officer from the Office of Public Guardianship concluded that Person A’s funds had not been used for her benefit, but rather for the benefit of the Registered Person. Consequently, both the Registered Person and his wife were deemed unfit to continue as attorneys. In December 2019, they surrendered their power of attorney. The investigation was then transferred to the Economic Crime and Financial Unit within Police Scotland.

 

7. A review of bank statements revealed inappropriate expenditures on goods and services, beauty treatments, dental care, holidays, restaurants, and purchases abroad. Additionally, substantial lump sum payments were traced directly to accounts held by the Registered Person and his company. On 14 April 2022, the police met with the Registered Person at a pre-arranged appointment, during which he was arrested on suspicion of embezzlement and subsequently interviewed. He was later charged with embezzlement.

 

8. The Registered Person responded to ARB, admitting the mishandling of his sister’s finances under the power of attorney and acknowledging that the money taken needed to be repaid.

 

9. He was convicted at Edinburgh Sheriff Court on 6 June 2025 and given a community payback order that included his agreeing to repay £160,998. He claims the offence only involved family matters and did not affect clients or his professional work, though he accepts it raises concerns about his integrity. He also states his sister has been well cared for and suffered no harm due to his actions.

 

10. The Registered Person was convicted on 5 May 2025, therefore the Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice 2017 (“the Code”) applies. Criminal convictions are referred to in the General Guidance section of the Code as follows:

 

‘A criminal conviction may be materially relevant to your fitness to practise, if, for example (this list is not exhaustive):

• It constitutes an offence under the Architects Act 1997 or other legislation directly affecting architects;
• It arises directly out of your professional activities;
• It constitutes an offence of dishonesty;
• It otherwise calls into question your integrity.’

 

11. The ARB submits that the convictions are materially relevant to the Registered Person’s fitness to practise because of various factors including that the conviction is one of dishonesty and brings into question the Registered Person’s integrity. The offence related to a vulnerable person and the Registered Person abused his position of trust when committing the offence.

 

12. It is alleged that the Registered Person’s conviction breaches Standards 1.1 and 9.2 of the Code.

 

Finding on the Material Relevance of the Conviction

 

13. The Committee considered the allegation as set out below:

 

The Registered Person has been convicted of a criminal offence other than an offence which has no material relevance to fitness to practise as an architect, in that he was convicted on 8^th May 2025 of Embezzlement.

 

14. The Committee noted that, upon having the charge read, the Registered Person admitted the fact of the conviction, but his written and oral submissions indicated that he did not accept that the conviction was materially relevant to his fitness to practise. The Committee noted that the conviction was proved by way of the certificate of conviction provided by the Edinburgh Sheriff Court.

 

15. The Committee had regard to the content of the Architects Code: Standards of Professional Practice (“the Code”) published in 2017. In particular the General Guidance relating to criminal convictions wherein the Code states;

 

“A criminal conviction may be materially relevant to your fitness to practise if, for example, …it constitutes an offence of dishonesty…it otherwise calls into question your integrity.”

 

16. The Committee noted that, in respect of disputed issues, the burden of proof was on the ARB and that the standard of proof was the civil standard of the balance of probabilities. So, it is for the ARB to prove the factual particulars set out in the allegation. It is not for the Registered Person to disprove them. The fact that the Registered Person chose to give evidence does not shift the burden onto him, it remains throughout on the ARB at this stage.

 

17. In reaching its decision the Committee considered the submissions made by both parties together with the evidence presented to it. The Committee considered the bundle prepared by ARB, the statement prepared and adopted into evidence by the Registered Person and his oral evidence and submissions.

 

18. The Committee heard evidence from the Registered Person, who maintained that his conviction was not connected to his professional practice as an architect and that the events leading to his conviction occurred outside the scope of his professional duties. However, the Committee observed that the Registered Person had taken out a loan from funds belonging to Person A for the benefit of his own business. While the Registered Person asserted that this loan was properly documented, the Committee considered this action to be a clear instance of the Registered Person prioritising his own interests over his financial responsibilities to Person A.

 

19. The Registered Person resisted the assertion that he had acted dishonestly. He stated that his failure was “not about my integrity or dishonesty” but was a “failure of management” of the assets of Person A. The Committee considered that this evidence had limited appreciation of the nature of the criminal offence to which he had pleaded guilty. Although he accepted that some of his clients had been “shocked” at his conviction, he denied that they would have been “appalled” although he also conceded that some clients declined to work with him following his conviction.

 

20. The Committee noted that the Architects’ Code applies to architects’ conduct in their private lives where such behaviour could undermine public confidence in the profession. Architects are held to high ethical standards and are expected to demonstrate integrity in all dealings, both personal and professional. Although there was no evidence to suggest that the Registered Person’s ability to carry out his professional functions had been directly affected by his actions or the resulting conviction, the Committee was concerned with the broader implications for trust and integrity within the profession.

 

21. In cross-examination the Registered Person accepted that he dishonestly took property that had been entrusted to him. This was viewed by the Committee as a development in insight as compared to his earlier evidence referred to at paragraph 19 above.

 

22. The Registered Person confirmed that he did not attempt to appeal the conviction. He also acknowledged that his conviction harmed his personal reputation, though he disagreed that they negatively affected the profession as a whole. He argued that by pleading guilty, he reduced any negative effect on the profession as compared to if he had gone to trial and been found guilty, calling his guilty plea the “least damaging” option for the profession.

 

23. In closing at the first stage of the hearing, the Presenter for the ARB submitted that Standard 1.1 was engaged as the conviction was for an offence of dishonesty and Standard 9.2 was breached as the conduct in question brought the Registered Person and the profession into disrepute. She further submitted that, although the Registered Person accepted his personal reputational damage, the disrepute went beyond this and impacted the wider profession and the conviction was plainly material to fitness to practise.

 

24. In closing, the Registered Person submitted that there had been no harm caused to any party and no financial benefit to him, and that all money has been, or will be, repaid. He asserted that he had tried to address his “errors” and had immediately referred himself to ARB upon his conviction.

 

25. The Committee considered the legal advice provided by the Chair, which it accepted. The Committee noted the following authorities in relation to the relevance of criminal convictions to a professional person’s fitness to practise.

 

26. In the case of Professional Standards Authority v Health and Care Professions Council and Ghaffar (2014) EWHC 2723 (Admin) Carr J stated that although a finding of impairment does not necessarily follow a conviction for dishonesty, it will be an unusual case in which dishonesty is not found to impair fitness to practise.

 

27. The policy established by caselaw (e.g. GMC v Spackman (1943) AC 627 and Achina v General Pharmaceutical Council (2021) EWHC 415 (Admin) confirms that the fact of a conviction is not a matter that is subject to challenge by the Registered Person (save in exceptional circumstances that do not arise in this case) and this Committee is not to relitigate the conviction. To allow a Registered Person to go behind the conviction and the underlying facts would endanger public confidence in the regulatory regime and the relationship with the criminal jurisdiction.

 

28. It is not the case that this Committee must limit its consideration only to whether the Registered Person’s ability to practise as an architect has been impaired by the fact of the conviction. The Committee is entitled to find impairment on the basis that public confidence in the profession would be undermined if a finding of impairment were not made in the particular circumstances of the case. This principle was confirmed in the case of Ige v NMC (2011) EWHC 3721 (Admin).

 

29. The Committee is satisfied that the conviction is materially relevant to fitness to practise as an architect. The conviction is one of dishonesty and relates to the abuse of a position of trust where the Registered Person misused funds entrusted to him. A finding of impairment is necessary to maintain the reputation of the profession which would be undermined if there was no finding that the conviction was materially relevant to fitness to practise.

 

30. The Committee considers that the Registered Person’s actions fell short of the following Standards of the Code:

 

i. Standard 1.1

ii. Standard 9.2

 

Sanction

 

31. Having found the Registered Person’s conviction had material relevance to his fitness to practise as an architect, contrary to section 15(1)(b) of the Act, the Committee then went on to consider what, if any, sanction to impose in this case.

 

32. The Chair provided guidance and legal advice to the Committee which it accepted. The Committee referred to the ARB Sanction Guidance 2022.

 

33. The Committee had regard to the public interest in disciplinary proceedings which includes the need to protect the public, maintain confidence in the profession and the ARB and to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct, behaviour and competence. The Committee was mindful that the purpose of imposing a sanction is not to be punitive, although it may have a punitive effect, and that any sanction must balance the rights of the Registered Person against the need to uphold proper standards and protect the public.

 

34. The Committee first assessed the overall seriousness of the conduct with reference to the facts found proved during the hearing and by considering the competing aggravating and mitigating factors in accordance with the guidance provided by the case of Fuglers & Ors v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2014] EWHC 179.

 

35. The Committee had regard to the principle of proportionality; weighing the impact a sanction may have on the Registered Person against the need to protect the public and uphold professional standards.

 

36. The Committee was mindful that its interference with the Registered Person’s right to practise, whilst using the title of “architect”, must be no more than is absolutely necessary to achieve the Committee’s purpose in protecting the public and upholding public confidence in the profession.

 

37. The Committee was satisfied that this case is at a high level of seriousness. The conviction is for an offence of dishonesty and the offence of embezzlement itself includes a breach of trust, which is a particularly serious aspect. In this case the position of trust was that of a Power of Attorney in respect of a vulnerable family member.

 

38. The Committee considered the following aggravating factors:

 

i. The Registered Person has demonstrated limited insight and remorse especially in relation to the impact of the conviction upon public perception of the profession.

ii. The duration of the offence (on the Registered Person’s account) was between 2012 to 2015 and was repeated and persistent until he was discovered.

 

39. The Committee considered the following mitigating factors:

 

i. The Registered Person has a 45-year unblemished professional record as an architect and is of good character save for the conviction that is the subject of this matter.

 

ii. The offence is isolated in as much as it relates only to the Registered Person acting as Power of Attorney and the conduct in question extends no further.

 

iii. The Registered Person promptly referred himself to ARB following his conviction and has demonstrated a high level of engagement and cooperation.

 

40. The Committee carefully considered the extent to which the Registered Person has reflected on his conduct and the lessons learned from these events. It was noted that the Registered Person has engaged in a process of self-reflection, showing a self-critical approach and some acknowledgement of the issues surrounding his actions. This suggests that there has been some degree of learning and personal development arising from this matter.

 

41. However, the Committee also considered the submissions made by the ARB, which highlighted that the Registered Person has not fully accepted the extent of his wrongdoing or sufficiently demonstrated genuine remorse for his actions. While there is some evidence of insight, this appears to be limited. Specifically, the Committee found that the Registered Person’s understanding of the consequences of his behaviour was largely confined to the personal impact upon himself, rather than recognising the broader implications.

 

42. In particular, the Committee observed that the Registered Person did not demonstrate a clear appreciation of the adverse effect his conduct may have had on the wider profession or on public perception of architects generally. Although he did show some awareness of how the press coverage of his conviction might affect his reputation, this was primarily in relation to those personally acquainted with him or those who might encounter such press reports. The Committee considered this insight to be limited, as it did not extend to a wider understanding of the potential damage to public confidence in the profession as a whole.

 

43. The Registered Person candidly admitted that “opportunity” was the primary motive in his offending which, he said, coincided with other issues in his life. The conduct started with taking smaller amounts and escalated over time into larger sums. The Registered Person maintained that he always had the intention of repayment and it would appear that he had adequate assets from which he could, and did, repay the sums he had taken. The Committee noted that he has until June 2026 to pay the outstanding £160,998 ordered by the Sheriffs Court.

 

44. The Committee is satisfied that the Registered Person’s role as Power of Attorney was not dishonest from the outset and his intention was to assist a family member from whom he had been distant for 30 years. He stepped in to help after the death of their spouse and the Registered Person had the best intentions when taking on this role. However, he described that he “made a mess of things” which is evident from his conviction.

 

45. The Registered Person gave frank evidence to the Committee about his personal reflection and appears to have significantly benefited from the counselling he has engaged with as part of the supervision of his sentence. His insight appears to be developing.

 

46. When considering which sanction was most appropriate and proportionate the Committee adopted the approach set out in the case of Rashid v General Medical Council 2006 EWHC 886 (Admin) to consider the least penalty first and to ask itself whether that is sufficient and, if not, then go on to the next, and so on.

 

47. The Fleischmann principle was set out in the case of Council for the Regulation of Healthcare Professionals v General Dental Council (2005) EWHC 87 (Admin) in which Newman J confirmed that a tribunal must consider the nature of the sentence imposed for the criminal conviction and that, as a general principle, where a professional person has been convicted of a serious criminal offence they should not be permitted to resume practice until they have satisfactorily completed the sentence imposed by the criminal court. The rationale being that good standing within a profession must be earned if the reputation of the profession is to be maintained. In this case the sentence expires on 6th June 2026.

 

48. However, the Committee must first consider what is the appropriate and proportionate sanction before applying the Fleischmann principle and noted the case of PSA v GDC (2024) EWHC 243 (Admin) in that Fleischmann cannot be applied as a rule and “…must bend to the requirement to impose a sanction which is just, proportionate and which is necessary to maintain public confidence”.

 

49. The Committee first considered whether to take no action other than to mark the finding under section 15(1)(b) of the Architects Act 1997. However, to do so would require exceptional circumstances to be present. The Committee is not of the view that the high level of seriousness could justify imposing no sanction.

 

50. The Committee considered the next available sanction, This sanction is appropriate for cases at the lower end of seriousness, which the Committee has already decided this case is not. Consequently, the Committee is satisfied that a Reprimand would be inappropriate given its findings.

 

51. The Committee considered the next available sanction, Penalty Order. The Committee does not find that this sanction is appropriate as the failings are too serious and the evidence of insight is currently insufficient.

 

52. The Committee considered the next available sanction, Suspension. This sanction is appropriate for serious offences. The following factors were considered relevant and militated away from suspension being the appropriate outcome.

 

i. The conduct that led to the conviction is fundamentally incompatible with continuing to be an architect.

ii. The dishonesty affected a vulnerable person.

 

53. The Committee considered the next available sanction, Erasure. The Committee was satisfied that the conduct was so serious that only removal from the Register will protect the public interest by upholding professional standards and is the only sanction that is sufficient to maintain public confidence in the profession. The following factors were considered particularly relevant;

 

i. The Registered Person has committed a serious criminal offence of dishonesty in breach of a position of trust.

 

ii. The conduct involved the commission of an offence against a vulnerable person. The public would be appalled that an architect convicted of such an offence could continue to be an architect.

 

iii. The offence was opportunistic but was not spontaneous and was enduring for at least 3 years and involved a substantial sum of money.

 

54. The Committee recognises that it is a personal tragedy for the Registered Person to have achieved qualification as an architect and maintain his good name for more than 40 years only to engage in the behaviour that led to his conviction. However, the public and members of the profession would be rightly appalled at such behaviour and only erasure would sufficiently mark the misconduct if the standards of the profession are to be upheld and confidence in the integrity of the profession maintained. The dishonesty and breach of a position of trust is fundamentally incompatible with continued membership.

 

55. The order of the Committee is Erasure. The Committee does not extend the minimum period of two years before the Registered Person can apply for restoration to the Register. The Committee has noted the efforts towards remediation and rehabilitation undertaken by the Registered Person and is confident that the risk of repetition of the behaviour is negligible.

 

56. This concludes the determination.