Mr Peter Kellow
THE ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BOARD
PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE
In the matter of
Mr Peter Kellow (040454C)
Held as a video conference
on 12 and 13 August 2020
Julian Weinberg (Chair)
Judy Carr (PCC Architect Member)
Martin Pike (PCC Lay Member)
In this case, the ARB is represented by Kathryn Sheridan of Kingsley Napley LLP.
Mr Kellow has attended this hearing but is not legally represented.
|The Professional Conduct Committee (“PCC”) found Mr Kellow guilty of unacceptable professional conduct (“UPC”) in that he:
and that by doing so, he acted in breach of Standards 9 and 12 of the Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice 2017 (“the Code”).
The sanction imposed is Erasure.
Charge and allegations:
1) In this case, ARB is represented by Ms Kathryn Sheridan. Mr Kellow (“the Respondent”) has attended this hearing which is being conducted remotely, but is not represented. The Respondent faces a charge of unacceptable professional conduct (“UPC”) based on one allegation in relation to a breach of the Architects Code: Standards of Conduct and Practice 2017 (“the Code”). It is alleged that:
1. The Respondent made an inappropriate public post on his Facebook profile on 13 April 2019.
2) The Respondent is a registered architect.
3) On 3 June 2019, the ARB received an email from the Architects’ Journal regarding whether the Respondent was being investigated in respect of a Facebook post. On investigation, ARB found a Facebook post dated 13 April 2019 which was visible as a ‘public’ post. When the Respondent’s profile was clicked, his profile information could be seen which included his profession and a link to his professional website.
4) The allegation is that the essence of the post is that the Respondent denies the existence of the Jewish race and comments that Jews, Sunni Muslims and others are members of a ‘cult’ and should be banned from important public office where they are in a position to discriminate between cult members and non-cult members and that they should be subject to registration. It is alleged that his comments, made on a public Facebook post, were inappropriate because they have the potential to be offensive to a wide range of people.
5) The full text of the Respondent’s Facebook posting was as follows:
“This business of “anti-semiticism” [sic] in the Labour party which is held up as racism. What is it all about really? Let us get a few thing [sic] straight. There is no such thing as the Jewish race. This is one of the many stunts that Judaists have pulled on non-Judaists who have swallowed it whole. There is only the religion/cult of Judaism and I never use the word “Jew” because that implies buying into the myth of racial commonality amoungst [sic] Judaists. The idea that members of Judaism throughout the world share a 3000 year old gene pool is plainly nonsense. II [sic] you look at their history just up to O AD there was plenty of racial mixing of the people called the “Jews” – not to mention the fact that they claim to originate from twelve tribes!! A DNA study of the population of Israel showed the Israelis to be mainly of Euroopean [sic] stock which is what you would expect. There is no doubt that Judaists have suffered from unfair and cruel treatment at many times in history but this was never racially motivated until the late nineteenth century and bloomed in the ideology of Adolf Hitler. Hitler used the myth of a Jewish race that the Judaists had invented against them. It is not far from the truth to say the Judaists were the inventers of European racism for they asserted they were racially different to the rest of us. Judaists have got themselves into a lot of trouble thougout [sic] history being subject to pogroms, ghettos and expulsions. I am not saying this was justified, but why do we see this consistent pattern? The Judaist myth makers would have it that this was racism. But racism as I have said is a recent phenomenon. Are the so-called “anti-semites”[sic] in the Labour Party simply “racists” as the popular narrative would have it? I doubt it. The problem people have and always have had with Judaism is not about race. It is because Judaism is a cult. What do I mean by a cult? A cult is a set of people, normally norminally [sic] unified by a religion or quasi-religion, who try to create a society within the general society. Judaism is far from being the only or even the most resented cult in history or the present.
Freemasonry is an obvious example and the suspicions that people feel towards it parallel closely those that some people feel towards Judaism. Mormonism, Scientology, and paganism are also cults. I would also include Sunni Islam in this list. Cults work against the interest of the general society as its members, in subscribing to a society within the society favour each other over the rest of us. This naturally creates resentment and suspicion. How can you trust such people? The liberal elite who rule us like cults as cults aid one of their central objectives – undermining the nation. So Freemasons, Judaists and Sunni Muslims become there natural bedfellows. Crucially liberals insist that these cults should be treated exactly the same as everyone else and any objection to this policy is anti-freedom or racist. So how should society deal with cults? How should society deal with people who through their cult activity weaken the bonds that the society needs to function well? First of all there is no question of banning them. I believe in freedom for the individual as a fundamental ideal and so if someone wishes to belong to a cult like Judaism or Freemasonry they must be free to do. But we must put restraints on their ability to create a society within a society. The main ones should be as follows
1. Registration of the cult in a public register
2. Registration of all adult members in a public register
3. No cult member can hold an important public office where they are in a position to descrimiate [sic] between cult members and non-cult members. For instance it is totally unacceptable lo have a Freemason or Judaist as a judge as their decisions will very like work in favour of fellow cult members. Their strong bond in their society within the society will ensure this
4. Whereas adults are free to choose to belong to a cult, the same cannot reply [sic] to their children. The assumption that the children of cult members will be ”born into” the cult is not acceptable in a civilised society. To this end, no cult can run its own “faith” schools
5. It must be against the law to wear cult clothing in public – except something worn on the top of the head like a hat [eg Sikh turbans or Judaist skull caps]. However, penalties will only be applied when a separate law [such as a driving evidence or bank robbery] is violated. We cannot have the police arresting people in the street for their clothing. Many will cry “attack on freedom” in the face of this new law but it is the opposite. It means cult members will not feel obliged to wear cult clothing in the street and in this way will be freer. The wives of Sunni men are an obvious example
As I mentioned, cults have become a flashpoint in the conflict between liberals and pro-nation sovereignists [sic] and so this is far from being a marginal issue. We must not hand the racist card to liberals when we criticise the activities of cults. By implementing sensible cult legislation [such as France already has] we can contain the problems of societies within our society and grant appropriate freedom to cult members”.
6) ARB alleges that, by making the relevant post, the Respondent has acted in breach of Standards 1, 9 and 12 of the Code.
7) The factual allegation is denied to the extent that while the Respondent admits having made the post, he denies that its contents are inappropriate, racist or anti-Semitic. He relies on a book written by an Israeli, Shlomo Sand in which he stated that there was “no such thing” as the Jewish race, and therefore, his view was respectable. He denies that his comments were racist or discriminatory. He stated that his posting was for discussion amongst limited Facebook friends and that the link to his profession was not explicit. It is his case that he is the subject of a witch hunt by the Royal Institute of British Architects (“RIBA”) and the ARB.
8) In addition, he states that the allegation against him relates to matters that fall outside the remit of the Code or the Architects Act 1997 which, he states, relate only to professional conduct in the course of an architect’s engagement on a specific job and not in relation to an architect’s personal life. It is his position that generalised comments on the world at large made by members are “not the business of the ARB”. Furthermore, it is his position that no offence can be proved to have been caused to others.
9) In reaching its decisions, the Committee has carefully considered the documentary evidence presented to it in the report of ARB’s Solicitor which includes the Respondent’s Facebook page, the live evidence of the Respondent, the Respondent’s press release and his written representations to ARB.
10) The Committee has accepted the legal advice given by the Legally Qualified Chair which is a matter of record. It has had regard to the fact that the burden of proof is on ARB and that the civil standard applies, namely proof on the balance of probabilities. The Committee is mindful that the more serious the allegation, the more cogent should be the evidence to find it proved. Whether the conduct alleged amounts to UPC is a matter for the Committee’s independent judgment to which no burden or standard of proof applies.
Assessment of the Respondent’s evidence
11) The Respondent was the sole witness who gave live evidence. The Committee noted that he gave evidence calmly and was largely measured. However, the Committee considered that in many respects, his evidence was unconvincing and lacked credibility. For example:
• With reference to the posting identifying that he was an architect, his initial position was that it would take some “drilling into my Facebook profile” to identify the connection. However, he accepted in response to questions put to him in cross-examination that the posting did contain a link to his profile which clearly described him as an architect. His profile contains a link to his practice website and he said in evidence that “that’s what it’s there for” and to make it easy to access his website;
• He was unwilling and evasive in answering questions about the wording of the relevant post. When asked questions about the wording, he repeatedly stated that he had no comment to make, he had “nothing to add” and that he “won’t get into a discussion”;
• The Committee did not consider his explanation about proposed registration credible in that he stated the public census asks for details of an individual’s religion and that he was simply referring to the making of the census details public. However, the Committee considered this explanation irreconcilable with his post in that registration of all adult members in a public register was required because “we must put restraints on their ability to create a society within a society”;
• The Committee did not accept his explanation that his comments in the post were justified because he needed to speak the truth in a legitimate online forum in relation to the origins of Jewry. Such a submission fails to have regard to the fact that, rather than being an intellectual discussion about Jewish history, the thrust of the post was that Jews and other identified groups were a cult, who “work against the interest of the general society as its members in subscribing to a society within the society favour each other over the rest of us. This naturally creates resentment and suspicion” and “weaken the bonds that the society needs to function well”. As a result, restraints were required to which other members of society would not be subject.
12) In the circumstances, the Committee found the Respondent’s evidence in material respects lacked credibility.
Findings of Fact:
13) The Committee makes the following finding of facts:
14) The Committee finds the facts proved for the following reasons.
15) It is not disputed that the Respondent made the relevant posts on his Facebook page on 13 April 2019. The Committee has had sight of the posting indicating that the posting was public, which the Respondent accepts. It therefore finds these elements of the particular proved.
16) The Committee then went on to consider whether the posting was inappropriate.
17) The Committee heard the evidence of the Respondent. For the reasons set out above, the Committee found the Respondent’s evidence unconvincing. Whilst he was unwilling to discuss the contents of the posting, he considered that it was not inappropriate as he was speaking the truth, and others who entered into the discussion, shared his views. The contents of the post he stated, were immaterial to his case as his conduct, being unrelated to his practice, had no bearing on his professional conduct.
18) The Respondent stated that his conduct was not inappropriate. He emphasised the need to speak the truth about the origins of Judaism and stated that, in a democratic society, people will get upset. He submitted that it was absurd to suggest that Jews were united by a gene pool and that most Jews know this anyway. It was wrong, he submitted, to suppress the truth for fear of being disciplined by one’s regulator. He emphasised the need for real debate about the truth. He did not regret the posting and would not say that he would distance himself from it.
19) The Committee noted that:
• The Respondent accepted that the posting was public and could be accessed by anyone with a Facebook account;
• The Respondent identified Jews, Sunni Muslims, (but not other religions), and other groups as cults who should be subject to restrictions to which non-members would not be subject, because they were creating “a society within a society”, who “discriminate between cult members and non-cult members” and who “weaken the bonds that the society needs to function well”;
• He was not prepared to comment to the suggestion put to him in questioning that his post suggested that Jews cannot be impartial or fair beyond denying that the post said that;
• He similarly declined to comment on the suggestion that his comments were derogatory.
20) The Committee recognises that, in the course of legitimate discussion, the right to freedom of speech permits individuals, subject to certain restrictions, to make comments that others may find controversial or offensive. However, the Committee has also had regard to the Equality Act 2010 and its prohibition on discrimination on the grounds of race, religion or belief which are protected characteristics under the Act. Whilst it is not this Committee’s function to make a determination as to whether the Respondent has breached that Act, the Committee has concluded that the Respondent’s comments, which the Respondent continues to stand by, made as they are against two specific established religions and other groups, are discriminatory, potentially offensive and are therefore inappropriate.
21) The Committee therefore finds that the Respondent made the relevant post on his Facebook page on 13 April 2019, that it was public, and that it was inappropriate. The Committee therefore finds the facts of this particular proved.
22) The Committee finds, and it was conceded by Ms Sheridan on behalf of the ARB, that the obligations under Standard 1.1 “to avoid any actions or situations which are inconsistent with your professional obligations” should be viewed in the context of acting dishonestly or without integrity, neither of which have been explicitly alleged against the Respondent.
23) Furthermore, the Respondent’s obligation under Standard 1.2 of the Code relate to the Respondent knowingly making comments that are discreditable to the profession, again within the context of acting dishonestly or without integrity. Whether justified or not, the Respondent was adamant that his comments were appropriate.
24) In the circumstances, the Committee does not find that the Respondent acted in breach of Standard 1.1 or 1.2 the Code.
25) However, the Committee finds that his conduct in making discriminatory comments about Jews and others have the potential to cause offence and brings both himself and the profession into disrepute in breach of Standard 9 of the Code. The Committee also finds that by acting as found proved, the Respondent acted in breach of Standard 12.
Finding on Unacceptable Professional Conduct:
26) Ms Sheridan submitted that the Respondent’s conducted amounted to UPC. She submitted that the Respondent’s inappropriate comments breached the various Standards of the Code as referred to above. The postings were made on a public Facebook profile where the link to his profession and his practice was quite visible to any Facebook user.
27) She reminded the Committee that the meaning of misconduct was considered in the case of Remedy UK v GMC  EWHC 1245: “First, it may involve sufficiently serious misconduct in the exercise of professional practice such that it can properly be described as misconduct going to fitness to practise. Second, it can involve conduct of a morally culpable or otherwise disgraceful kind which may, and often will occur outwith the course of professional practice itself, but which brings disgrace upon the doctor and thereby prejudices the reputation of the profession…..Conduct falls into the second limb if it is dishonourable or disgraceful or attracts some kind of opprobrium; that fact may be sufficient to bring the profession of medicine into disrepute. It matters not whether such conduct is directly related to the exercise of professional skills”.
28) In considering whether the Respondent’s conduct amounts to UPC, she also referred the Committee to the case of R (on the application of Pitt and Tyas) v General Pharmaceutical Council  EWHC 809 (Admin). This case, she submitted established that behaviour remote from a professional practice if sufficiently disgraceful, can still amount to “serious professional misconduct”. In deciding whether it does, the Committee should consider the potential damage caused by the Respondent’s conduct to the public reputation of the profession.
29) She referred to the racial characteristics of Jews and Muslims and referred to prevailing equality laws and the fact that the Respondent was advocating members of those groups be treated differently as they could not be trusted to act fairly. The language, in referring to the relevant groups as “such people” was offensive and discriminatory.
30) She submitted that the Respondent’s conduct was sufficiently serious, and would attract a sufficient level of moral blameworthiness that his conduct amounts to UPC. His conduct, she submitted, would be considered deplorable by other members of the profession.
The Respondent’s submissions
31) The Respondent denied that his conduct was sufficiently serious to amount to UPC. He repeated his submissions in relation to his conduct not being inappropriate. He emphasised the need for freedom of speech and that ARB was acting like the “thought Police” in relation to conduct outside the scope of his professional practice. He considered these proceedings to be a gross insult and disgraceful and he praised those who had entered into the discussion online with him. He submitted that the use of the words “such people” was intended to relate to his posing a hypothetical person who might think that way.
32) He submitted that the ARB was exceeding its powers by “sneaking around on anything we might say” and that he had been put in this position for “no good reason”. He repeatedly stated that he stood by what he posted and that he “really regretted taking it down” when asked to by RIBA. He also submitted that the ARB had produced no evidence that anyone was offended by his comments.
The Committee’s decision
33) In reaching its findings, the Committee has carefully considered all the evidence presented to it, all submissions made and has accepted the advice from the Legally Qualified Chair. The Committee recognises that, by virtue of Section 14(1)(a) the Act, not every shortcoming on the part of an Architect, nor failure to comply with the provisions of the Code, will necessarily result in a finding of UPC. However, a failure to follow the guidance of the Code, whether in one’s professional or private life, is a factor that will be taken into account should it be necessary to examine the conduct or competence of an Architect.
34) The Committee recognises that any failing must be serious (Vranicki v Architects Registration Board  EWHC 506 Admin) such that it would attract a degree of opprobrium or harsh criticism. The Committee has borne in mind the case of Spencer v General Osteopathic Council  EWHC 3147 (Admin) and accepts that “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” (The Queen on the Application of Dr Malcolm Noel Calhaem –v- General Medical Council  EWHC 2606 (Admin). The Committee is nevertheless mindful that this case relates to conduct outside of the Respondent’s professional practice.
35) Misconduct, which is akin to UPC, was defined in the case of Roylance v GMC  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”.
36) The Committee has taken into account all the evidence before it together with both Ms Sheridan’s submissions and the Respondent’s written and oral submissions.
37) Having considered the above authorities and the introduction to the Code, the Committee is satisfied that in considering UPC, it is entitled to take into account conduct outside of a Respondent’s professional practice.
38) It is further satisfied that in assessing the seriousness of the Respondent’s conduct, it can consider the risk of offence that his comments might cause. In doing so, that is a matter of the Committee’s judgement noting that there is no burden or standard of proof to consider in reaching its determination on UPC. As such, the Committee rejects the Respondent’s submission that UPC cannot be established as ARB has not provided evidence of offence being caused.
39) The Committee rejects the Respondent’s submission that the use of the phrase “How can you trust such people?” was not his words but what he imagined others might think. There was nothing in the wording of the text to suggest that this was anything other than his view. In reaching that conclusion, the Committee noted that the Respondent, when given the opportunity to comment on the views expressed in his post, confirmed that these were his views at the time.
40) The Committee concluded that the nature and seriousness of the matters found proved and the corresponding breaches of the Code, albeit that they did not occur in the course of the Respondent’s architectural practice, represent a serious departure from the standard expected of a registered architect. The public should rightly be able to expect, as required by the Code, that others will be treated fairly, with respect and not discriminated against. In the Committee’s judgment, this posting of accusatory and discriminatory Facebook content against Jews, Sunni Muslims and other groups would be considered deplorable by fellow members of the profession and members of the public and would attract a sufficient level of harsh criticism such that the Respondent’s failings are sufficiently serious to amount to UPC. As such, the Committee concluded that confidence in the profession would be undermined by the Respondent’s conduct.
41) The Committee therefore finds that the facts found proved amount to UPC.
42) Ms Sheridan reminded the Committee of the need to act proportionately, balancing the public interest with those of the Respondent, and that the purpose of imposing a sanction was not to be punitive even though it may have a punitive effect. She submitted that the Committee should have regard to the ARB’s Sanctions Guidance and it should balance any identified aggravating and mitigating factors.
43) In terms of aggravating factors, she asked the Committee to take into account the following:
a) The Respondent’s actions were deliberate. The Respondent had stated that the post had been carefully considered and thought through, it was discriminatory and potentially offensive and;
b) The Respondent has not demonstrated any insight into his actions.
44) As for mitigating factors, Ms Sheridan informed the Committee that there were no previous adverse regulatory findings recorded against the Respondent. She also reminded the Committee that the matters before the PCC related to one post in April 2019. She also stated that whilst the Respondent had not adduced any character evidence, this should not be held against him.
The Respondent’s submissions
45) Having considered the Committee’s determination on UPC, the Respondent denied that he had breached Standards 9 or 12. He stated that he would be horrified to think he had not live up to those standards. However, he submitted that the ARB had sought to expand the scope of the Code to cover hypothetical situations which he considered were outside the remit of the Code.
46) He steadfastly maintained that he was not guilty and that the Committee’s determination was wrong. He stated that he disagreed with the Committee regarding proving offence. He was adamant that he was just posting an opinion.
47) He stated that he had been an architect since 1973 and that he didn’t like to see his regulatory body “stooping so low to bring the profession into disrepute”. These proceedings, he submitted, did a lot of damage to the ARB and damaged the profession. He stated that there had been no similar previous cases before the PCC and that these proceedings provided a dangerous precedent.
48) He stated that he did not believe that any sanction was appropriate and that the ARB should “bury” the case.
49) The Respondent took care to clarify his comments about regretting taking the post down stating that by doing so, the comments on the conversation had been lost. He stated that these showed that no one had been offended by the post. His motivation for making the post was an effort to avoid secrecy in society.
50) He stated that he would now modify the wording of the post, removing the word “cult” as he did not want to offend anybody or cause offence.
Decision on Sanction
51) The Committee then considered whether to impose a sanction, and if so, which one. The Committee has had regard to the public interest, which includes the need to protect the public, to maintain confidence in the profession and the Board, and to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour. The Committee has carefully considered all the evidence and submissions made during the course of this hearing. It has heard and accepted the advice of the Legally Qualified Chair which again, is a matter of record. It has borne in mind that the purpose of imposing a sanction is not to be punitive although it may have a punitive effect. It has taken into account the Respondent’s interests, the ARB’s Sanctions Guidance and the need to act proportionately. It has taken into account any aggravating and mitigating factors in this case and the Committee has exercised its own independent judgement.
52) Having taken all the evidence and submissions before it into account, the Committee has identified the following aggravating factors:
1. The wording of the Respondent’s post was deliberate and considered;
2. The Committee notes the lack of any demonstrable evidence of insight or remorse into his conduct as well as how it might potentially impact on others and on the reputation of the profession. The Respondent has repeatedly said that he stands by his comments. In his written representations dated 17 June 2019, he stated that “I defend every word I said”. The lack of understanding of the impact of his actions is further evidenced by his approach to these proceedings. In his written submissions, he referred to the “rank feebleness” of the case against him, that he considered the PCC to be a “kangaroo court” and that the proceedings were brought against him with “malign intent” and were a “travesty”. Far from expressing any concern as to how his comments might be received by Jews, Sunni Muslims or the wider public, his concern was that the ARB was “damaging his reputation” and that the ARB was “playing very dirty”. He maintained that he had been put in this position for no good reason and that doing so was a “gross insult” and “undignified”. In his written representations dated 17 June 2019, he stated that “I believe I have been the subject of a witch hunt”. The Committee therefore considered that the Respondent was unable to acknowledge and take responsibility for his failings and his lack of insight was a serious aggravating factor.
53) The Committee has identified the following mitigating factors:
1. He has engaged with the regulatory process, despite his views about the appropriateness of the proceedings;
2. He stated that he would not make the post again, and would not use the word “cult”, but this should be seen in the context of the Respondent unequivocally standing by the substance of the post;
3. He had made limited admissions, albeit not to the appropriateness of the post;
4. He does not have any adverse regulatory findings in a career spanning 47 years;
5. There is no evidence before the Committee that he has discriminated against clients in the course of his professional practice;
6. This was a one-off post.
54) Given the absence of demonstrable meaningful insight, and his insistence that he stands by the views expressed in the Facebook post, the Committee cannot be confident that the Respondent’s UPC would not be repeated. However, it considered the risk of recurrence in a public forum in such a way as identifies him as an architect, to be low.
55) The Committee notes that the matters found proved are serious to the extent that the Respondent’s failings diminish both his reputation and that of the profession generally. Treating others fairly and with respect are core qualities that any member of the public should be able to expect from a professional. The Respondent has not expressed any meaningful understanding of how he has fallen short in this regard. The Committee has therefore concluded that the Respondent’s conduct was sufficiently serious for it to require the imposition of a sanction and has considered them in ascending order of severity.
56) The Committee first considered whether to impose a reprimand. The Committee considered that such a sanction was neither appropriate nor proportionate given that it did not consider the Respondent’s UPC to be at the lower end of the scale given the aggravating factors identified.
57) The Committee then considered whether to impose a penalty order and also concluded that such a sanction was neither appropriate nor proportionate to protect the public or the reputation of the profession. The UPC found proved is too serious for the imposition of a penalty order.
58) The Committee next considered whether a suspension order was appropriate. Having carefully considered the Sanctions Guidelines, the Committee considered that such a sanction would be insufficient to uphold the reputation of the profession. Given the seriousness of his UPC, the identified risk of repetition, and the lack of demonstrable meaningful insight, the Committee has concluded that the Respondent has entrenched discriminatory attitudinal issues. These failings, the Committee has concluded, are fundamentally incompatible with continuing to be an architect. As a member of a profession, architects hold a privileged position in society, which brings with it responsibilities, including the obligation to treat others fairly and without discrimination. The Committee is mindful that the Respondent’s UPC occurred outside his professional practice. Nevertheless, the standards expected of an architect extend beyond a work context. In relation to specified religions and groups, by advocating that “we must put restraints on their ability to create a society within a society” by requiring registration and exclusion from holding public office where they are in a position to discriminate between cult members and non-cult members, the Respondent’s conduct fell far short of what is expected of a member of a profession.
59) The Committee therefore concluded that the matters found proved are so serious that only erasure from the register would protect the reputation of the profession. The Committee therefore directs that the Respondent’s name be erased from the register. The Committee recommends that the Respondent shall be entitled to apply for restoration to the register in no less than two years’ time which the Committee considers proportionate in the circumstances.
60) This would mean that should the Respondent wish to return to practise as an architect, he would have to demonstrate that he is fit to do so by satisfying his regulator that he had fully addressed his behaviour that gave rise to the findings of this Committee, prior to resuming practice as an architect. This, the Committee concluded, was an essential safeguard to ensure that the reputation of the profession would be upheld.
61) That concludes this determination.