Mr Jonathan Cockram

vviivTHE ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BOARD

PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE

In the matter of

JONATHAN COCKRAM (075880I)

Held on

22 May 2024 – 23 May 2024

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, counsel instructed by Kingsley Napley LLP (“the Presenter”).

Mr Jonathan Cockram (“the Registered Person”) attended the hearing and was represented by Mr Jon Goodwin. 

 

 

 

Background

 

1. The Registered Person is a registered architect.

 

2. On 30 October 2023, the Registered Person was convicted, following a guilty plea, at Manchester City Magistrates’ Court of the following offence:

 

Between 22/03/2021-07/07/2021 at Manchester, being a person aged 18 or over for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, intentionally attempted to communicate with Kirsty, a person under 16 who you did not reasonably believe to be 16 or over, the communication being sexual, namely involved conversation about sexual activity, contrary to section 1(1) if the Criminal Attempts Act 1981.

 

3. The Registered Person was sentenced on 11 December 2023 at Manchester City Magistrates’ Court. The sentence imposed was as follows:

i. 3-year Community Order which required him to participate in a 34-day Programme Requirement and 20-day Rehabilitation Activity Requirement (RAR) by 10 December 2026;

ii. £120 fine;

iii. Costs of £85.

 

4. The background to the conviction is set out in the witness statement of the law enforcement officer who posed as a 12-year-old female, ‘Kirsty’, from Bridgend, Wales, as part of Operation Zinc. The officer in question used the pseudonym ‘Kirsty Graham’ to engage with the Registered Person via the social media platform ‘KIK’, which is a mobile phone application which allows users to chat privately by searching for a username or by allowing users to join ‘Groups’ relating to particular interests. The Registered Person engaged with ‘Kirsty’ via ‘KIK’ using username ‘J W Archite’. ‘Kirsty’ presented as a 12-year-old female, who lived with her father. The Registered Person engaged in repeated correspondence with ‘Kirsty’ that involved conversations about sexual activity, which appeared to escalate over the period of time in which they were in contact. The Registered Person referred to ‘Kirsty’ as a “sexy baby”, invited her to stay with him at a hotel and made sexually explicit comments such as, but not limited to:

 i. “You any good with your hands…you could show me one day”

ii. “You could get out all wet and come and sit on my lap to soak me forcing me to just jump in with you”

iii. “…I would maybe make you swim the full pool under water and between my Legs…naked hehe (emoji)”

iv. “Well you have to eat it while all wet from the pool. And you have to sit on my lap to eat it and you are not allowed to use your hands (emoji)”

v. “Well if you enjoyed it I’d have to bend you over and spank your bum harder for liking it haha”

vi. “And based on what we said ealier [sic], I would tell you not to sit there. Because it would feel like you were sat on a courgette or a cucumber and I doubt that’s comfy…Then if you enjoyed it go crazy enjoying the big surprise as it pokes you”

vii. “But would you pull your top down on purpose (or make it fall down) just so you got to remove my shorts…I want you to come and have the best time and do anything you want to do and learn anything you want to learn and try something you’ve never tried before.”

viii. “Well your ex was mad. That’s why it hurt the first time for you. He should have done that to relax you first. It’s my fave thing to do. I could spend hours down there.”

ix. “Awww I bet you are not chubby and your boobs are not small and anyway they don’t need to be big to be licked kisses and sucked…”

x. “To be honest if you wore either of those just for me. I would happily kiss your lips very tenderly and then ask to suck your nipples through the material and then ask to lick your pussy”

xi. “I only suggested a hotel as it means we would be in a warm room completely alone and could get to know each other in peace and you can just watch tv if you wanted”

xii. “Oh I hope you still happy for me to buy you a little bikini and then our salted caramel ice cream all over you and then lick it off”

xiii. “Yes. I imagine putting a big scoop of the ice cream on the top of my very hard cock. You hold my shaft in your hand like an ice cream cone and then you lick it all like a 99…”

xiv. “Basically I’ll be lay on my back and you will sit on my lap and you will sit down on my cock so it enters your pussy…”

 

5. The Registered Person was interviewed by the police on 10 August 2021. During that interview, the Registered Person acknowledged that he knew ‘Kirsty’ was 12 years old but stated on multiple occasions that he did not think the person was real and that “something didn’t feel right”. He also stated that ‘Kirsty’s’ “age was irrelevant in the sense that I was just trying to chat to somebody, and yes I was pushing it a bit and its completely inappropriate.”

 

Registered Person’s Response

 

6. The Registered Person made a self-referral to the ARB on 13 December 2023. He sent several emails to the ARB between 13 December 2023 and 22 December 2023. In his email, dated 14 December 2023, he stated:

 

“The charge was Attempted online sexual communication with a minor.

 

I was investigated for 2 years and no other offence occurred and I was only charged with this one occasion. The charge is “attempted”, because it was a decoy police officer at the other end.

 

I have attended rehab programmes and psych assessment to get to the root of why the offence took place and all my mitigating evidence and work to date following the original arrest, all went in my favour during the sentencing.

 

…this all occurred due to personal issues which have been resolved, and continue to be worked upon. At no point has it impacted on any of my work, and my company have been supportive at all points”

 

7. The Registered Person confirmed in a further email sent on the same day (14 December 2023), that he had been directed to attend, as part of his sentence, “34 Horizon sessions and 20 RAR days within 3 years”, in addition to being registered on the Sex Offenders Register.

 

Admissions

 

8. 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. The Legally Qualified Chair (LQC) announced that the factual allegation was found proved by reason of that admission.

 

Evidence

 

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

i. Report to ARB;

ii. Memorandum of Conviction;

iii. Witness Statement of DC Chivers;

iv. Witness statement of ‘Kirsty Graham’;

v. The ‘KIK’ messages;

vi. Transcript of the police interview;

vii. Registered Person’s representations;

viii. Registered Person’s letter to the Court dated 15 November 2023;

ix. Various character references (including from the Registered Person’s current employer, his probation officer, his wife, his mother and his sister).

 

Decision on Sanction

 

Submissions

 

10. The Presenter did not make a “bid” for any particular sanction. However, during his opening he invited the Committee to consider the extent to which the Registered Person had sought to minimise his culpability in the police interview and whether this has continued. For example, he drew to the attention of the Committee the character reference from the Registered Person’s sister in which she stated: “I think he made a stupid mistake sending messages to other people that were not his wife, but I also don’t believe he intentionally sent messages to a minor.”

 

11. The Presenter submitted that the Registered Person’s conviction is for a serious offence. He further submitted that it is for the Committee to determine whether the Registered Person should be permitted to continue practising whilst completing the terms of his 3-year Community Order or whether his conviction is so serious that it is fundamentally incompatible with continued registration.

 

12. Mr Goodwin informed the Committee that the Registered Person wished to express his sincere apologies for his conduct and deeply regrets his actions. It was submitted that the Registered Person takes full responsibility for his behaviour and is remorseful. Mr Goodwin outlined the Registered Person’s family circumstances and the personal problems he and his wife had experienced over the years including matters relate to his own health and the heath of close family members. Mr Goodwin informed the Committee that the Registered Person “bottled up his emotions” and did not seek help. The Registered Person’s difficulties were then exacerbated when his wife was made redundant during Lockdown. Mr Goodwin invited the Committee to accept that it was within this context that the Registered Person sought to hide from reality by losing himself “in a world that didn’t exist” (a reference to the Registered Person’s own words in the letter he sent to the Court dated 15 November 2023). Mr Goodwin submitted that despite his personal issues the Registered Person was fully professional at work and has the continuing support of his current employer.

 

13. Mr Goodwin submitted that the Court recognised that the Registered Person is a professional man and imposed a fine rather than an Unpaid Work Order. He also invited the Committee to note that a Sexual Harm Prevention Order was not imposed. The Committee was informed that the Registered Person is due to commence the Horizon Course in June 2024 and was directed to the letter from his probation officer – LB in which it was stated: 

 

“I regard Mr Cockram’s employment as not linked to risk, and I regard it a positive factor his rehabilitation. While I understand this is not the test which the board will be considering, I hope for the best outcome for Mr Cockram.”

 

REDACTED AS PRIVATE SESSION

 

14. Mr Goodwin also referred the Committee to the report from Safer Lives – a partnership of former probation officers. The Registered Person completed the Safer Lives Programme which he had sourced and self-funded. The report was described as a summary of the Registered Person’s

 

“journey through the five-session programme and his investigation period, to his new understanding of how his offences were committed, and his response to his arrest.” The report states that the Registered Person “believes that internet protections and restrictions are now in place, but he has not thought or been tempted to test this and has only been using his phone for purposeful activity or to play simple word games.”

 

15. Mr Goodwin invited the Committee to impose a penalty order of up to the maximum sum of £2,500. In the alternative, he submitted that the Committee should impose a suspension order of 8 or 9 months to coincide with the expected completion date of the Horizon Course.

 

   The Committee’s Approach

 

16. 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].

 

17. 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. 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.

 

18. 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

 

19. The Registered Person engaged in sexualised conversation with a person he believed to be 12 years old. The Committee noted that the Registered Person initiated the contact on 22 March 2021 by commenting on ‘Kirsty’s’ appearance and within the same message asked her how old she was. On being told that ‘Kirsty’ was 12 years old the conversation continued and included reference to homework, her parents and school. The Registered Person in the initial series of messages on 22 March 2021 stated that he was an architect. The Committee interpreted this as an attempt to impress ‘Kirsty’ and provide reassurance that he could be trusted. The Registered Person stated in his police interview that he did not think that ‘Kirsty’ was real, but he subsequently pleaded guilty on the basis that he did not reasonably believe her to be 16 or over. The Committee acknowledged that although the Registered Person initially sought to minimise the seriousness of his behaviour, over time he has developed an understanding of why he behaved in the way he did and an appreciation that he should have acted differently.

 

20. The Committee also noted that the Registered Person’s offending behaviour occurred within the context of personal issues which, as stated by Mr Goodwin, does not provide an excuse but does offer an explanation. The Registered Person is of previous good character. The director of the practice, where the Registered Person is currently employed, made it clear that although they did not “condone his actions” the Registered Person had conducted himself with “full remorse, responsibility, and integrity.” The Registered Person, through his legal representative, reiterated this by expressing remorse and regret. The Committee accepted this as genuine, not least because of the steps the Registered Person has taken to address his behaviour which includes participating in the Safer Lives programme and a self-imposed restriction on the use of social media.

 

21. The Committee concluded that the Registered Person had demonstrated a significant degree of insight. However, much of his insight was internally focussed. Although introspection is important there was little evidence before the Committee that the Registered Person had properly considered the impact of his conviction on his professional standing as an architect and the wider profession. Nonetheless, the Committee took the view that the underlying behaviour which led to the Registered Person’s conviction was unlikely to be repeated, not least because of the devastating impact his behaviour has had on his himself and his family.

 

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

i. The criminal conduct was for a brief duration within the context of an otherwise unblemished career;

ii. There is positive evidence of good character. However, the Committee gave more weight to the employer reference than the references from the Registered Person’s family members as the iii. latter lacked independence. It was also unclear whether his employer and family members had been informed of the full extent of the Registered Person’s conduct.

iv. The Registered Person has demonstrated significant insight and expressed remorse;

v. He experienced difficult personal circumstances for a significant period leading up to his offending behaviour including his own health problems and those of close family members;

vi. He has taken remedial action to prevent repetition;

vii. He voluntarily notified the ARB of his conviction;

viii. He made admissions during the criminal proceeding at the earliest opportunity.

 

23. The Committee identified the following as aggravating factors:

 i. The Registered Person made specific reference to being an architect in his communications with “Kirsty”;

ii. The sexualised conversations persisted for a period of more than 3 months.

 

24. 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

 

25. 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.”

 

26. 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

 

27. 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. 

 

28. The Registered Person actions in sending sexualised messages to what he believed was a 12-year-old girl demonstrated very poor judgment which persisted for a significant period of time. 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.

 

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

 

Penalty Order

 

30. 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.

 

31. 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

 

32. 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.

 

33. The Committee took into account the factors set out in paragraph 6.4.3 of the Sanctions Guidance 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. However, the Registered Person engaged in sexualised conversations with a person he believed to be 12 years old for more than 3 months. 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 also noted that the programme requirement of the Registered Person’s Community Order will not commence until June 2024, and the Registered Person will remain on the  Sex Offender’s Register until 20 October 2028. The Committee concluded that in light of these features the Registered Person’s behaviour is fundamentally incompatible with continued registration as an architect.

 

34. In reaching the above conclusion the Committee was mindful that imposing a suspension order would allow the Registered Person to resume practice automatically after the end of the period of suspension in accordance with section 17 of the Act. This would occur irrespective of the Registered Person’s completion of his sentence and his automatic removal from the Sex Offenders Register in 2028. Despite the remedial steps the Registered Person has already taken, a return to the register before the completion of the rehabilitative part of a sentence and whilst registered as a Sex Offender would serve to undermine rather than uphold trust and confidence in the profession. 

 

35. 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

 

36. 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. The Committee was also satisfied that any lesser sanction would undermine public trust and confidence in the profession.

 

37. 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 and maintain public confidence in the profession.

 

38. 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 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.

 

39. The Committee directs that the Registered Person is not eligible to apply for re-entry to the profession until after the expiry of 3 years and 6 months from the date of this order. This direction has been imposed to coincide with the Registered Person’s automatic removal from the Sex Offenders Register.

 

40. That concludes this determination.