Mr John Anthony Hamilton Marshall
THE ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BOARD
PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE
In the matter of
John Antony Hamilton Marshall (049788F)
———-
Sean Hammond (Chair)
Deborah Kirk (PCC Architect Member)
Jules Griffiths (PCC Lay Member)
———–
In respect of the charges against John Antony Hamilton Marshall (049788F), (“the Registered Person”):
The Registered Person:
a. accepts the facts and matters set out below and consents to the Consent Order Panel of the Professional Conduct Committee making a disciplinary order against him in the terms set out below; and
b. confirms that he has been offered the opportunity to appear before a Hearing Panel of the Professional Conduct Committee to present his case, but has foregone his right to do so.
The Architects Registration Board accepts the facts and matters set out below and consents to the Professional Conduct Committee making a disciplinary order against the Registered Person in the terms set out below.
The Allegation
The allegation made against the Registered Person is 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 12 October 2023 of:
(i) Possess indecent photograph / pseudo-photograph of a child;
(ii) Make indecent photograph / pseudo-photograph of a child;
(iii) Make indecent photograph / pseudo-photograph of a child;
(iv) Make indecent photograph / pseudo-photograph of a child.
Statement of agreed facts
- The Registered Person is a registered architect.
- On 1 December 2023, the Registered Person notified the ARB of his conviction as part of his application to re-join the register. The Registered Person had been removed from the register due to non-payment of his registration fee. He was re-admitted to the register on 11 December 2023.
- On 12 October 2023, the Registered Person was convicted, following a guilty plea, at
Preston Magistrates Court of the following offences:
(i) Possess indecent photograph / pseudo-photograph of a child;
(ii) Make indecent photograph / pseudo-photograph of a child;
(iii) Make indecent photograph / pseudo-photograph of a child;
(iv) Make indecent photograph / pseudo-photograph of a child.
- The Registered Person was committed to Preston Crown Court for sentence. On 9 November 2023, he was sentenced to a 12-month Community Order, comprising of an electronically monitored Curfew Requirement from 9 November 2023 to 23 December 2023. He was also directed to complete a Rehabilitation Requirement (40 days) and a notification requirement to register with the Police for a period of five years was made in accordance with the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
- On 21 December 2023, the Registered Person was made subject to a Sexual Harm Prevention Order which remains in force for five years.
Admissions
- The Registered Person admits 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. The allegation, as set out above, is admitted in full.
Disciplinary Order
- Section 15(1)(b) Architects Act 1997 states that the Professional Conduct Committee may make a disciplinary order in relation to a Registered Person who has “has been convicted of a criminal offence other than an offence which has no material relevance to his fitness to practise as an architect.”
- The Consent Order Panel of the Professional Conduct Committee, with the consent of the parties and having taken account of its responsibilities to protect the public and maintain the reputation of the profession, makes the following disciplinary order:
- In all of the circumstances, the Registered Person agrees to a disciplinary order of ERASURE.
- The Registered Person has no previous disciplinary history. He has engaged in the regulatory process and has admitted the allegation in full.
- The admitted allegation has the potential to diminish both the Registered Person’s reputation and that of the profession generally and therefore the parties agree that the Registered Person’s conduct is sufficiently serious to require the imposition of a disciplinary order. In light of the very serious nature of the convictions the parties agree that the imposition of an ERASURE order is an appropriate and proportionate disciplinary order to impose.