Mr Thomas James Ford

THE ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BOARD
PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE

_______________

In the matter of
Thomas James Ford (099531B)
Held via video conference on:
———–
18 – 19 August 2025

Present

Martin Winter (Committee Chair)
Robert Dearman (Committee Architect Member)
Rachel Childs (Committee Lay Member)

———–

In this case, the Architects Registration Board (“ARB”) is represented by Mr Leonard Wigg (‘the Case Presenter’) instructed by Kingsley Napley LLP.

Mr Thomas Ford (“the Registered Person”) has attended this hearing and was legally represented by Mr Jonathan Goodwin.

 

 

Preliminary Matters – Amendment of Particulars

1. Mr Wigg, on behalf of the ARB, applied to amend the particulars of the charge to add an offence for which the Registered Person had been convicted but had been omitted from the particulars set out in the ARB papers. The missing offence was as follows;

“On 5 November 2022 at Macclesfield assaulted [person], and the offence was racially aggravated within the terms of section 28 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.”

2. Mr Goodwin, on behalf of the Registered Person, did not oppose the application. The Committee accepted the legal advice from the Chair that Rule 26 of the Professional Conduct Committee (“PCC”) Rules 2022 (“the Rules”) permit the amendment of particulars as long as it appears to the Committee that the amendment should be made and it can be made without injustice. In this case no injustice arises as the Registered Person was fully aware of all of the convictions that arose in this case, and each was fully set out in the certificate of conviction. Accordingly, the Committee granted the application to amend the particulars.

Allegation (as amended)

3. The Registered Person faces an allegation that;

(1) 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 20 November 2023 of the offences of:

a. “On 5 November 2022 At Macclesfield without lawful excuse, destroyed a Toyota Prius to the value of £22,240 belonging to (person) intending to destroy or damage such property or being reckless as to whether such property would be destroyed or damaged. Contrary to sections 1(1) and 4 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971.”

b. “On 5 November 2022 At Macclesfield without lawful excuse, damaged a fence to the value of £1,300 belonging to (person) intending to destroy or damage such property or being reckless as to whether such property would be destroyed or damaged. Contrary to sections 1(1) and 4 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971.”

c. “On 5 November 2022 at Macclesfield with intent to cause (person) harassment, alarm or distress use threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress and the offence was racially aggravated within the terms of Section 28 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

d. “On 5 November 2022 at Macclesfield assaulted [person], and the offence was racially aggravated within the terms of section 28 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.”

4. The fact of the convictions was evidenced by a certificate of conviction from the Magistrates’ Court in Warrington. The Registered Person pleaded guilty to the offences on 17 October 2023 and was sentenced on 20 November 2023 to 18 weeks’ imprisonment suspended for 24 months.

5. The Registered Person notified ARB of the convictions when renewing his ARB membership on 31 December 2024.

Background

6. The associated MG5 police report stated that in the early hours of 5 November 2022 the Registered Person had been socialising with friends and work colleagues during the evening and a taxi had been booked to take them home. Other passengers were dropped off first leaving the Registered Person as the last person in the taxi with the driver.

7. While alone with the taxi driver the Registered Person struck up a conversation asking where the driver was from. The driver replied that he was from Manchester to which the Registered Person then asked, “… where are you actually from?”. The driver responded that he was from Pakistan. At this point the Registered Person became irate and stated, “why don’t you go back to where you came from” and verbally abused the driver calling him a “Paki bastard”.

8. The Registered Person then began to punch the driver causing the taxi to swerve. The driver stopped the vehicle and opened the driver’s side door. The Registered Person continued to strike at the driver and then pushed the driver out of the car before getting into the driver’s seat and making off leaving the taxi driver in the road. A statement from Royal Stoke University Hospital confirmed the presence of a small graze to the taxi driver’s left cheek.

9. The taxi was later found to have crashed into a residential garden destroying a fence. The taxi was damaged beyond repair. The police attended and found the Registered Person near the scene of the crash trying to conceal himself in a tree. He was arrested and taken into custody. A breath test taken later the same night showed the Registered Person had a reading of 103mg (the legal limit being 35mg) however no drink-driving offences were alleged against him.

10. The Registered Person was interviewed by the police later the same day. He confirmed that he had been celebrating his recent qualification as a chartered Architect with work colleagues. At the end of the evening a taxi had been arranged, and he was last to be dropped off. He told the police that a heated debate between him and the taxi driver became physical. He described the taxi driver stopping the car, getting out and coming round the vehicle towards him. The Registered Person said that he hopped across the centre console from the front passenger seat and drove the vehicle in order to get away from the situation. He admitted crashing the car and then moving away from the scene and sitting at the roadside until the police arrived. He denied punching the taxi driver to the head as alleged. He does not appear to have been questioned about the racial slurs that formed the charges to which he later pleaded guilty, but this could be because the taxi driver’s police statement was not taken until 10 November 2022.

11. The Registered Person has provided a statement dated 27 July 2025. He describes being “deeply ashamed” and acknowledges that he “let down not only myself but the profession I worked so hard to join”. He states that he does not seek to go behind the conviction, to which he says he pleaded guilty on legal advice but suggests that the context should be considered and he described his belief that the taxi driver’s impact statement was, in part, “exaggerated”. He says that he has “never held any racist or discriminatory views” and he finds the idea “abhorrent”.

12. In an earlier email to the ARB dated 6 January 2025 the Registered Person apologised for not informing the ARB of the fact of the conviction earlier. He stated that he overlooked this obligation as he was overwhelmed by the stress of the situation. He also stated that his decision to plead guilty was on the advice of his solicitor because there would be a 2-year delay at the Crown Court if he did not plead guilty and that credit for an early guilty plea would reduce the sentence by one third. He emphasised the stress of the proceedings upon him and his family which was why he pleaded guilty “to try and move past it as soon as possible”.

13. As the Registered Person was convicted on 20 November 2023, 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):
i. It constitutes an offence under the Architects Act 1997 or other legislation directly affecting architects;
ii. It arises directly out of your professional activities;
iii. It constitutes an offence of dishonesty;
iv. It otherwise calls into question your integrity.’

14. The ARB submits that the convictions are materially relevant to the Registered Person’s fitness to practise because of various factors including;

i. The use of racist language towards a member of the public.
ii. The conduct attracted a suspended prison sentence.
iii. The conduct brings the wider profession into disrepute.

15. It is alleged that the Registered Person’s convictions breach Standards 1.1, 9.2 and 12 of the Code.

Finding on the Material Relevance of the Conviction

16. The Committee considered the allegation as set out above.

17. The Committee noted that, upon having the charge read, the Registered Person admitted the fact of the conviction. The Committee noted that the conviction was proved by way of the certificate of conviction provided by the Magistrates Court in Warrington.

18. The Committee had regard to the content of the Architects Code: Standards of Professional Practice (“the Code”) published in 2017. The Committee also had regard to the advice of the Chair 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.

19. 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 and the statement of the Registered Person and character references provided.

20. Mr Goodwin submitted that the offences were committed more than 2½ years ago and that the convictions were more than 1½ years ago. The compensation order made by the Crown Court was paid in full soon after the sentencing hearing and that the suspended sentence order (SSO) was satisfactorily complied with and was due to expire in November 2025. He submitted that the offence was “out of character” for the Registered Person, a view reflected by the supervising probation officer who also provided a character reference.

21. The Registered Person pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and his conduct since then has, Mr Goodwin submitted, been exemplary.

22. Mr Goodwin described that on the night in question the Registered Person had become drunk with friends while celebrating his recent qualification as an architect. He described that the driver became agitated, and an argument ensued during which “grave errors” occurred that led to the convictions. The racially aggravated factors were not challenged at court, which is something the Registered Person “regrets”. The Registered Person later addressed this point in more detail following questions from the Committee. He explained that his regret was that he was unable to challenge the allegations because he could not. He confirmed that he accepted the racially aggravated factors of his conviction.

23. Mr Goodwin highlighted that the matter had been hanging over the Registered Person for 12 months before criminal charges were brought and that he voluntarily disclosed the convictions in his annual declaration in December 2024 when renewing his ARB membership. Mr Wigg confirmed that in 2023 the annual declaration form did not include a specific question asking if the member had been convicted of a criminal offence. The form was changed in 2024 to ask the specific question. However, Standard 9.2 of the Code sets out that a member must declare a criminal conviction within 28 days.

24. The Registered Person addressed the Committee and answered questions. He confirmed that he had set up his own practice in 2024 and that it was going well. He has plans to expand into commercial premises and take on a team. The Registered Person accepted that, by his guilty pleas, he had accepted the factual basis of the allegations.

25. He expressed his shame at his conduct and the distress he caused to the taxi driver. He stated that he had changed his behaviour through moderating his alcohol consumption. In response to questions posed by the Committee he conceded that his written submissions had placed more emphasis on the impact he had experienced, and he explained that he has always felt that the impact on the driver was more important. He recognised the impact on the victim’s ability to work and provide for his family. He explained that his reference in written submissions that he felt the victim had “exaggerated” the impact of the offence related only to compensation claims and the extent of injuries caused. He did not seek to resile from his responsibility but pointed out the initial claim for compensation was reduced by the court and claims of significant injuries were not supported by the medical evidence.

26. The Registered Person stated that his main failing was in allowing himself to get into a state where his behaviour did not reflect his true character. He could not explain why, when very drunk, he would resort to grossly offensive racist slurs other than he was clutching for insults. He stated that the issues of racism and irresponsible drinking had been raised with his probation officer but had not been explored more thoroughly as the probation officer concluded there was no need. The Registered Person confirmed that although the SSO included 10 days of Rehabilitation Activity Requirements (RAR) he had actually completed no RAR days at all. The probation officer had “ticked them off” during the monthly meetings that formed the supervision of his SSO.

27. The Registered Person confirmed that at the time of the criminal offences he had completed studies that included ethics and the Code. He stressed the long and hard journey he had undertaken to reach qualification and asserted that he had “been naïve” and had made a “great mistake”, and that he wanted to “give back to the industry”. He confirmed that he had not informed RIBA of the conviction or these proceedings. Mr Wigg confirmed that ARB would notify RIBA of the outcomes of disciplinary proceedings and that RIBA members have an obligation to notify “negative outcomes from a court”.

28. 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.

29. 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.

30. It is also not the case that this Committee must limit its consideration only to whether the Registered Person’s abilities to practise as an architect have been impaired by the fact of the conviction. The Committee is entitled to find fitness to practise impaired 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).

31. The Committee is satisfied that the convictions are materially relevant to fitness to practise as an architect. The convictions are for high value criminal damage and violence against a member of the public and are aggravated by the racist abuse that accompanied the assault on the taxi driver. The reputation of the wider profession has been brought into disrepute alongside the personal reputation of the Registered Person. Public confidence in the profession would be significantly undermined if the Committee did not find the conviction was materially relevant to fitness to practise as an architect. Architects are expected to work with individual members of the public and maintain high standards of behaviour in profession and personal interactions.

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

i. Standard 1.2
ii. Standard 9.2
iii. Standard 12.1

Sanction

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

34. The Chair provided guidance and legal advice, summarised below, to the Committee.

35. 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.

36. 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.

37. 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.

38. 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.

39. The Committee was satisfied that this case is at a high level of seriousness. The convictions are for unprovoked, violent offences against a taxi driver in a vulnerable situation and were racially aggravated. Such behaviour undermines the standing of the Registered Person and the wider profession.

40. The Committee considered the following aggravating factors:

i. The Registered Person delayed informing the ARB of his conviction. This is a breach of Standard 9.2. The Committee accepts that the annual declaration form did not ask the specific question in 2023 about convictions, but the Code requires disclosure within 28 days. The annual declaration was amended in 2024 to include a tick box question and only then did the Registered Person notify ARB of his conviction.

ii. There was little actual rehabilitation carried out during his SSO or at all. The Committee accepts that it is not the fault of the Registered Person as he is subject to the requirements placed upon him by the Probation Officer. This absence of rehabilitation activity during the SSO prevents any meaningful evidence of remediation. Insight has developed from his email to ARB 6 January 2025 through to his statement dated 27 July 2025 and to his oral submissions at the hearing. The Registered Person identifies the effect of alcohol as being a cause of his conduct but has used this to separate his “real” self from the events in November 2022. He is unable to explain why, when drunk, he would resort to racial slurs in order to insult. He could have sought out support rehabilitation assistance for himself aside from the probation service. It appears that he and the probation officer agreed between them that there was no need for rehabilitation despite the obvious factors of irresponsible drinking and use of racist slurs underpinning the offences.

iii. The Committee assessed that the taxi driver was particularly vulnerable. He was working alone at night.

41. The Committee considered the following mitigating factors:

i. The Registered Person has a previous unblemished professional record with the ARB and good character save for the convictions that are the subject of this matter.

ii. The offences were admitted at Court at an early stage on a “full facts” basis.

iii. The disclosure of the conviction to ARB was made voluntarily (but should have been made much earlier).

iv. Insight is developing positively.

v. It was an isolated event.

42. The Committee considered the character references from the following:

i. Mark Morris – dated 25.1.25 – Probation Practitioner.
ii. Andrew Walker – dated 16.10.23 – family member.
iii. Brent James dated – 16.10.23 – Architect at NBDA Architects Limited.
iv. Edwards Barron – dated 16.10.23 – Director NBDA Architects Limited.
v. Qasin Aziz – dated 16.10.23.

43. The character references were mainly those that the Registered Person relied upon in the criminal jurisdiction. The only recent character reference is from the probation officer who supervised the Registered Person during the suspended sentence. This person described the Registered Person’s actions as “out of character”. Such an apparently positive testimonial must be assessed in the context of the nature of a relationship between a probation officer and a convicted person maintaining compliance with a sentence where a breach of its terms could lead to immediate imprisonment. The probation officer has no experience of the character of the Registered Person prior to his conviction.

44. The references from colleagues at NBDA Architects were provided the day before the guilty pleas were entered but the Registered Person stated that they were provided in the knowledge that the Registered Person was going to admit the charges. As he has since left that practice he was unable to obtain more up to date references from these people.

45. The Committee finds that the Registered Person has reflected upon his conduct with a self-critical eye and has learned some lessons from the incident, but he is unable to explain the underlying reasons for his behaviour. The assault and racist language alone present a picture of an appalling event and deplorable conduct. This was followed by the taking of a vehicle without consent and crashing it while under the influence of alcohol. The incident, as shocking as it is, could easily have been much worse.

46. The Committee considered that the Registered Person’s usual, sober self-awareness may enable him to suppress the negative side of his ambivalence toward racism and his excessive alcohol consumption allowed these guarded thoughts to break free. He remains unable to explain why racial slurs were his immediate reaction to a situation where he wanted to insult his victim. The Committee remains concerned that he has not sought to explore this more fully and simply dismisses his behaviour as “not the real me” when the evidence of his conviction would suggest that it is. The Committee does not share his confidence that these racist feelings were never there. When he was under the influence these feelings appear to have gained an unrestrained voice, expressing themselves in a shocking and extreme way.

47. 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 whether that is sufficient and, if not, then go on to the next, and so on.

48. 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 suspended sentence expires on 19 November 2025.

49. The Committee must also observe the guidance from the case of Opare v NMC (2019) EWHC 1851 that a tribunal must first consider what is the appropriate and proportionate sanction before applying the Fleischmann principle.

50. 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 is not of the view that the high level of seriousness could justify imposing no sanction.

51. The Committee considered the next available sanction, Reprimand. 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.

52. 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.

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

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

54. 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 by upholding professional standards and is the only sanction that is sufficient to maintain public confidence in the profession. The following factors were considered relevant:

i. The Registered Person has committed serious criminal offences.

ii. The conduct, involving the commission of offences involving violence against a vulnerable person that were racially aggravated and such conduct is fundamentally incompatible with continuing to be an architect. The public would be appalled that an architect convicted of such offences could continue to be an architect.

iii. The lack of sufficient insight does not allow the Committee to have full confidence that this or similar conduct will not occur in future. The Registered Person has asserted that the behaviour is not in his character. This does not assist in explaining why he behaved in this way. He has addressed excessive drinking but has not sufficiently addressed the underlying issue of his resort to using racist slurs.

55. The Committee recognises that it is a personal tragedy for the Registered Person to have worked so hard to achieve qualifications as an architect only to mark the event with the shocking behaviour that led to his subsequent convictions. However, the public 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.
56. 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 restoration to the register will be subject to the consideration of the ARB Board, who will be best placed to make that decision and assess whether the Registered Person has successfully rehabilitated himself.

57. This concludes the determination.