Mr Paul Gerard Treacy

THE ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BOARD
PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE
_______________

In the matter of
Paul Gerard Treacy (062576K)
Held in Person on:

8 – 12 September 2025
_______________

Present

Sadia Zouq (Legally Qualified Chair)
David Mulligan (Architect Member)
Rachel Childs (Lay Member)
_______________

In this case, the ARB was represented by Ms Yasmin Omotosho (“the Presenter”), of 7 Bedford Row, instructed by Kingsley Napley LLP.

Mr Paul Treacy (“the Registered Person”) attended the hearing and was not represented.

[PRELIMINARY MATTERS WERE CONSIDERED IN PRIVATE]

The Allegation
1. Mr Treacy (“the Registered Person”) is charged by the Architects Registration Board (“ARB”) with unacceptable professional conduct (“UPC”), and the Professional Conduct Committee (“the Committee”) is responsible for deciding whether the Allegation is found proved, or not. The ARB relies upon the following particulars in support of the Allegation:

(1) The Registered Person acted as an Office Mentor and/or RIBA Examination Supervisor for Person A during her Part Three RIBA Course and in that role he:
(a) Did not appropriately manage a conflict of interest in that he continued to act in his role after he then began a romantic and/or personal relationship with Person A and/or did not inform RIBA of the relationship;
(b) Drafted and/or amended Person A’s Case Study prior to its submission to RIBA;
(c) Opened the Part Three examination paper in advance of the examination taking place;
(d) Provided Person A with the examination questions in advance of the examination;
(e) Advised Person A to review the questions and study them in advance of the examination;
(f) Provided Person A with model answers to the examination questions;
(g) Signed a declaration confirming that the examination had been conducted in accordance with RIBA examination conditions and that there had been no collusion, when that was not the case
(2) The Registered Person assisted Person A in obtaining the award of an uplift payment to be awarded to her on a project, which had not been disclosed and/or agreed with the client;
(3) The Registered Person’s actions at particulars 1a and/or 1b and/or 1c and/or 1d and/or 1e and/or 1f and/or 1g and/or 2
(a) Lacked integrity; and/or
(b) Were dishonest.

[THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND FINDINGS ARE PRIVATE]

Decision on Unacceptable Professional Conduct (“UPC”)

2. The Chair advised that whether the facts found proved amounts to UPC is a matter for the Committee’s independent judgment and there is no burden or standard of proof.

UPC is defined as conduct which falls short of the standard required of a Registered Person. Not every shortcoming on the part of an architect, nor failure to comply with the provisions of the Code, will necessarily give rise to disciplinary proceedings or a finding of UPC. Architects are expected to be guided by the spirit of the Code as well as its express terms.

3. In deciding whether the particulars found proved amount to UPC the Committee had regard to the definition of misconduct, which is akin to UPC, and which was defined in the case of Roylance v GMC [2000] 1 AC 311 as:
“a word of general effect, involving some act or omission which falls short of what would be proper in the circumstances. The standard of propriety may often be found by reference to the rules and standards ordinarily required to be followed by a medical practitioner in the particular circumstances”.

4. The Committee also recognised that any failing must be serious, Vranicki v Architects Registration Board [2007] EWHC 506 Admin. It bore in mind that for a finding of UPC, “a degree of moral blameworthiness on the part of the registrant likely to convey a degree of opprobrium to the ordinary intelligent citizen” was required, Spencer v General Osteopathic Council [2012] EWHC 3147 (Admin). The Committee was aware of the distinction between a single act and multiple acts of concern, “mere negligence does not constitute misconduct” and that:

“a single negligent act or omission is less likely to cross the threshold of misconduct than multiple acts or omissions and a single instance of negligent treatment unless very serious indeed, would be unlikely to constitute deficient professional performance.” (R (Calhaem) v General Medical Council [2007] EWHC 2606 (Admin)).

5. The issue for the Committee in this case is whether the failings on the part of the Registered Person were sufficiently serious as to amount to UPC.

6. Ms Omotosho invited the Committee to find the Registered Person’s conduct at Particulars 1 and 3 amounted to UPC. She submitted that the Committee had found that the Registered Person knowingly assisted Person A in gaining an unfair advantage during her examinations, he failed to manage the conflict of interest appropriately, he acted without integrity and behaved dishonestly. Ms Omotosho submitted that the Registered Person’s conduct fell significantly short of the standards expected of a registered architect.

7. Ms Omotosho submitted that the Registered Person’s actions in assisting Person A were not only inherently dishonest but also undermined the integrity of the academic process she was undergoing, thereby eroding trust in both the examination process and the profession. There were multiple instances of dishonesty and a lack of integrity.

8. Ms Omotosho referred to a number of aggravating factors, including the premeditated and dishonest nature of the Registered Person’s actions, the impact on the fairness and integrity of the RIBA Part Three assessment process, and the broader effect on public confidence in the profession. Ms Omotosho submitted that the Registered Person’s conduct was not a one-off incident, but part of an ongoing pattern of behaviour. While the Registered Person did eventually self-report, the Committee will note both the fact and the timing of his disclosure when reaching its decision on UPC.

9. Ms Omotosho submitted that the public, as well as those entering the profession, must be able to place confidence in registered architects to uphold the highest standards of ethical behaviour. The Registered Person failed to uphold these standards. He breached the trust placed in him as a professional.

10. In conclusion, Ms Omotosho submitted that the Registered Person’s conduct was a serious falling short and she invited the Committee to make a finding of UPC in relation to all of the particulars found proved.

11. The Registered Person submitted that he self-reported his conduct. He stated that it was false for the ARB to suggest that his conduct was premeditated. He said that he opened the Part Three examination papers in private, that he was unaware Person A had committed plagiarism, that he did not tell Person A what was coming up in the Part Three examination and he did not tell her what to revise for the examination.

Findings on UPC

12. The Committee took into account all the evidence before it together with the submissions from Ms Omotosho and the Registered Person. It had regard to the Chair’s legal advice and the ARB Code.

13. The Committee concluded that the Registered Person’s conduct amounted to UPC for the following reasons.

14. In respect of Particular 1, the Registered Person’s actions were serious. He was acting in a professional and trusted role as both Office Mentor and RIBA Part Three examination supervisor for Person A. His actions demonstrate repeated and premeditated individual acts of dishonesty at various stages of the RIBA process, with the intention of assisting Person A to obtain her qualification. The Registered Person thus abused the trust placed in him by RIBA. He prioritised his relationship with Person A and disregarded the requirements of his roles of Office Mentor and RIBA Part Three examination supervisor, of which he was fully aware. Instead, he made conscious and repeated decisions to assist Person A over a period of time. His actions allowed Person A to gain an unfair advantage during her Part Three assessment process and ultimately submit a Case Study that was not entirely her own work and provide answers in the examination that were not her own. Despite knowingly assisting Person A, the Registered Person then signed a declaration to say that Person A’s examination had been conducted in accordance with RIBA examination conditions and there had been no collusion when he knew this was not the case, thereby misleading RIBA and breaching Standard 1.2 of the Code.

15. The Registered Person did not declare his relationship with Person A as a conflict of interest to RIBA, which amounted to a breach of Standard 1.3, nor did he report his conduct to RIBA and the ARB until several years later, despite having ample time and opportunity to do so. In the Committee’s view, he self-reported his own conduct with the intention of exposing Person A’s conduct during her Part Three examination process.

16. In respect of Particular 3, integrity and honesty are fundamental principles of the profession enshrined in Standard 1.1 of the Code. Registered architects are expected to act with integrity and honesty at all times. Such qualities are fundamental to the personal standing of individual architects and maintaining public confidence in the profession. The Registered Person chose to disregard these fundamental principles and his professional obligations to maintain his relationship with Person A. He repeatedly acted in a dishonest manner and his conduct lacked integrity. The Committee concluded that the Registered Person not only breached the trust placed in him by RIBA but also the trust placed in him as a registered architect.

17. The Committee considered the wider public interest, which includes the maintenance of public trust and confidence and the declaring and upholding of professional standards. It noted that Standard 9 of the Code requires architects to maintain the reputation of the profession. The Committee determined that the Registered Person breached Standard 9 and further determined that if there was no finding of UPC it would undermine rather than uphold public trust and confidence in the professional standards of architects.

18. In conclusion the Committee determined that the factual findings and the corresponding breaches of the Code were sufficiently serious to impact adversely both the reputation of the Registered Person and the profession generally. The Registered Person’s conduct represented a standard of conduct that fell significantly below the standards expected of a registered architect. This conduct, taken as a whole, amounted to a serious departure from the standards expected of a registered architect. It clearly amounted to UPC.

Decision on sanctions

Registered Person’s evidence

19. The Registered Person gave evidence. He disputed the references in the Committee’s determination on UPC to there being an “ongoing pattern of behaviour” and “repeated” conduct. He stated that in the context of a thirty-year career, there was no such pattern and no repetition. What occurred was a single lapse of judgment and an isolated incident carried out under coercion relating only to the Part Three examination. There have been no prior complaints. The Registered Person said that professional standards emphasise the importance of protecting the integrity of the title “Architect” and actively encourage whistleblowing where wrongdoing is identified. His decision to reveal the truth about himself and Person A was not a malicious act. It was consistent with the ARB’s expectations to uphold standards.

ARB’s submissions

20. Ms Omotosho did not advance a specific sanction. She highlighted a number of aggravating and mitigating factors and took the Committee through the available sanctions as set out in the ARB’s Professional Conduct Committee Sanctions Guidance 2022 (“Sanctions Guidance”) and the factors relevant to their consideration.

21. In terms of aggravating factors, it was highlighted that the matter was only reported after a number of years, and that there had been a refusal or inability to acknowledge failings. On the other hand, several mitigating factors were identified. It was submitted that there was little or no risk of harm to clients or the wider public. The Registered Person had given evidence that the conduct occurred only for a short period of time, and this could be characterised as a brief episode in an otherwise unblemished career. There was also some evidence of insight or remorse, as the Registered Person accepted the findings of the Committee and admitted to dishonesty in relation to the opening of the Part Three examination questions. Although no direct evidence of personal circumstances was provided, it was suggested by Ms Omotosho that the Committee may wish to take into account the context of the Registered Person’s relationship with Person A. Further mitigating factors included the Registered Person’s previous good character and the fact that the matter was self-reported. In terms of insight, it was acknowledged that the Registered Person had apologised and reflected on his conduct, although his focus still remained on the actions of Person A.

Registered Person’s submissions

[SOME SUBMISSIONS ARE PRIVATE]

22. In concluding his submissions, the Registered Person wished to acknowledge the fairness of the Committee’s findings which have been “exemplary”. He said the ARB proceedings had been cathartic for him – he has been able to present evidence and confront the truth.

Legal advice

23. 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 public.

24. The Committee first assessed seriousness 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.

25. 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. 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.

26. The ARB Code states that architects must always act with honesty and integrity. These are fundamental tents of the Code which undermine the trust the public places in the profession. Consequently, a finding of dishonesty is particularly serious and likely to warrant a more serious action.

27. In Patel v GMC (2003) UKPC 16 Lord Rodgers of Earlsferry stated that “for all professional persons…a finding of dishonesty lies at the top end in the spectrum of gravity of misconduct”. Dishonesty, even when it is related to matters outside the professional sphere, undermines trust and confidence in the profession. The courts have frequently supported the approach to exclude members from their professions where there has been a lack of probity and honesty. As Lord Bingham put it in Bolton v Law Society [1994] 1 WLR 512, ‘the reputation of the profession is more important than the fortunes of any individual member.’

28. However, there is also a broad spectrum of dishonesty which the Committee must consider when determining the appropriate and proportionate sanction. Dishonest conduct can take many forms. The Committee should carefully consider the nature of the dishonesty and determine how serious it is. The ARB Sanctions Guidance sets out factors that would suggest erasure was the appropriate sanction in cases involving dishonesty. They are:

i. A deliberate cover up when things have gone wrong;
ii. Dishonesty resulting in a direct risk to clients or the wider public;
iii. Dishonesty affecting someone vulnerable;
iv. Dishonesty resulting in personal financial gain;
v. Premeditated, systematic or longstanding deception.

29. In contrast, incidents of opportunistic or spontaneous dishonesty, and one-off incidents may be considered less serious by the Committee.

30. The Committee considered the following aggravating factors were present:

i. There was a pattern of poor conduct of dishonesty and lack of integrity that had taken place over a period of time. The Registered Person did not appropriately manage a conflict of interest as he acted as both Office Mentor and Part Three examination supervisor for Person A whilst in a personal and/or romantic relationship with her; he opened the Part Three examination questions in advance of the examination; he drafted and amended Person A’s Case study prior to its submission; he provided model answers to Person A to the examination questions and he signed a declaration confirming that the Part Three examination had been conducted in accordance with RIBA examination conditions and there had been no collusion when he knew this was not the case. The Registered Person had opportunities throughout this period to have corrected his conduct, he actively chose not to do so.

ii. The Registered Person’s dishonest conduct was deliberate and pre-meditated. In his complaint to RIBA, he admitted to “significantly” contributing to Person A’s Case Study and he separately crafted model answers to questions for Person A’s Part Three examination.

iii. The Registered Person failed to disclose his conduct for several years. He explained to the Committee that his decision to self-report to RIBA and the ARB was only prompted by the professional reputational damage being caused by Person A. This demonstrated to the Committee the Registered Person’s lack of understanding and appreciation of his duties as a regulated professional.

iv. The Registered Person failed to demonstrate sufficient insight into his conduct. While he admitted to providing model answers to examination questions to Person A in breach of the RIBA regulations, he sought to blame Person A for copying his answers verbatim in the Part Three examination. This demonstrated to the Committee the Registered Person’s inability to separate his professional and personal lives. The Registered Person admitted to opening the Part Three examination questions in advance of the examination and admitted this was dishonest, but he failed to acknowledge the wider consequences of his actions, in particular the impact his conduct had on the integrity of the RIBA Part Three examination process.

v. There was a substantial risk of harm to the wider public as the Registered Person had himself identified the risks associated with assisting someone to achieve a qualification for which they had received undue assistance and support in breach of the RIBA Regulations.

vi. The Registered Person was unable to fully acknowledge his conduct. Even at the sanction stage, he maintained in his evidence that his actions were the result of coercion and duress from Person A. The Committee considered this demonstrated an ongoing failure to accept responsibility for his conduct which it had found was serious and a significant falling below the standards expected of an architect.

31. The Committee considered the following mitigating factors:

i. The Registered Person’s conduct was for a brief duration in an otherwise longstanding and unblemished career of almost 30 years;
ii. There was evidence of some reflection and remorse during the sanction stage.

32. The Committee was not able to attach significant weight to the mitigating factors. The Committee was not satisfied that the Registered Person has been able to look back at his conduct with a self-critical eye. He continued to place blame on Person A for his conduct and repeatedly asked the Committee to view his conduct in light of the coercion and duress he alleged he was placed under by Person A. The Committee was not satisfied that the Registered Person had fully understood his failings and the impact his actions had on the reputation of the wider profession.

33. The Committee was satisfied that this case was at a high level of seriousness. The findings of dishonesty and lack of integrity undermine the standing of the Registered Person and the wider profession.

34. 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 (reported at 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.

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

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

37. The Committee considered the next available sanction, Penalty Order. The Committee did not find this sanction appropriate as the failings were too serious. The evidence of insight was insufficient.

38. The Committee considered the next available sanction, Suspension. This sanction is appropriate for serious offences. The following factors were considered relevant:

i. The Registered Person’s lack of sufficient insight and continued refusal to accept responsibility for his dishonest conduct indicated potentially entrenched integrity issues.
ii. The proven dishonesty on repeated occasions over a period of time was fundamentally incompatible with continuing to be an architect.

39. 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, uphold professional standards and maintain public confidence in the profession. The following factors were considered relevant:

i. There was evidence of dishonesty and a lack of integrity;
ii. There was a serious risk of harm to the public;
iii. There was evidence of deliberate disregard for the standards expected of an architect;
iv. The Registered Person’s conduct is fundamentally incompatible with continuing to be an architect;
v. The lack of sufficient insight does not allow the Committee to have full confidence that this or similar conduct will not occur in future where the Registered Person prioritises personal matters over professional obligations.

40. In the Committee’s view, there was an absence of compelling evidence of insight from the Registered Person into his conduct. Therefore, to allow the Registered Person to continue in practice would be to damage the reputation of the profession. Given the seriousness of the matters found proved the only appropriate and proportionate sanction to uphold the reputation of the profession and protect the public was an erasure order. The Committee had regard to the impact of such a sanction on the Registered Person but considered that the public interest outweighed his interests.

41. The Committee therefore directed that the Registered Person’s name be erased from the Register. The Committee did not extend the minimum period of two years before the Registered Person can apply for restoration to the Register.

42. This meant that should the Registered Person wish to return to practice as an architect, he would have to demonstrate that he is fit to do so by satisfying the ARB that he had addressed the failings that gave rise to the findings of this Committee before returning to practice as an architect. The Committee considered that this was an essential safeguard for the public and to ensure that the reputation of the profession is upheld.

43. That concludes this determination.