He held his third wife down ........ bit her and screamed a death threat at her in April last year. The court heard he was suffering from depression at the time............
onq wrote: Suspending a license to practice might be acceptable where the matter was not directly related to the profession and could be considered a "crime of passion" thatwas unlikely to occur in normal client architect relations.
PVC King wrote:Now I'm getting you confused with your French architect mate!!!
I think a suspension while he underwent psychiatric supervision for a year may have been more appropriate; had it been a client or contractor he was supervising or even a supplier then game over; it does however show how the media and in particular printed media love to stereotype people according to their careers or abodes; although in that regard a Croydon based architect is a bit of a contradiction....
The fundamental principle suggested by your question is a fair one.
The actual work of most architects is in the private sector.
(Were the architect in question working within the government sector, I think the general rules regarding treatment of employees convicted of crimes would apply and he'd lose his position, though not lose his membership of the profession. His re-employment would then be a matter of him finding an employer in the private sector willing to hire him -- fairly difficult but not totally impossible for a well-connected bloke.)
If, under a legal challenge to their striking-off, the ARB were to give the fact that the convicted man was interacting with the public, and as such they had a duty to protect the public, then I'd expect the barrister for the struck-off man to make a vigorous defence.
For openers, so many people in professions where they interact with the public are convicted of crimes and they are not barred from practising their jobs. So, implicitly at least, most professional bodies accept that a person convicted of a crime in his/her private life is generally not automatically more likely to commit similar crimes in his/her working environment.
It would have to fall on the ARB to demonstrate that the particular crime and the particular nature of an architect's interaction with the public would be such as to justify their decision to disbarr.
I think that this would be difficult for the ARB.
It would be far easier for the ARB here if he'd attacked a client in his office or made unwanted sexual advances on a secretary employed by him.
But with the crime centred on a personal relationship and carried out at home it seems harder to me for the ARB to play the public protection card.
But the question in reality is more academic.
Since the reapplication time is within his sentence period - with allowance for time served, good behaviour and so on he'd be out in ~ 3.5 years.
And with 3.5 years quiet service (e.g. as voluntary studio master in the prison and maybe some hours as voluntary teaching assistant) and a few good references from prison staff, he'll be taken back by the ARB no bother.
The only remaining question then is whether some mention of his having done time for a crime would be on the publicly-accessible part of his ARB professional record . . .
I fancy that ARB would not do this.
Otherwise he'd have to sue as such a black mark would undoubtedly deter a good many clients from using his services.
Clearly the ARB wants to be seen to be applying sanctions yet will not apply such sanction as would give rise to a restraint of trade case by the suspended architect involved.
Kinda like the GAA who suspend a famous player for so many weeks but no so many as to stop him playing in the major matches lest it cause uproar by his county board.
Hope you're not clearing the way to murder Mrs ONQ . . .
teak wrote:Most of these cases relate to matters bearing on the professional conduct of the members involved.
According to the news reports, e.g.
Mr Wille had already been relieved of his old job due to his collapsing at work.
So I'd say you're safe enough in committing a crime that has no connection with your job.
teak wrote:Hands off Gormley.
He's abut the only thing ministerial in the current shower.
Played a good hand on Poolbeg.
Made planning officials have regard to energy-saving aspects of design features,
not just throw them out.
teak wrote:The Poolbeg decision and its merits are clear enough for anyone.
Ask someone who's lived near an incinerator in UK what it's about.
The having regard to passive-solar features of home design thing is
actually now being implemented in many rural houses.
People are allowed more wall glazing in SE, S and SW walls.
You wouldn't have a hope of getting this just a few years back.
I know that for many it's more of a personally appealing feature than
a functional one -- but who cares how as long as you can get it.
Anyway, we're well off topic here.
Maybe we should demand the records of all recent cases of striking off
from the RIAI's Professional Misconduct Committee.
teak wrote:OTC, the way he has held it up with the foreshore license seems to be a perversion of the democratic process.
You really have to have a sense of proportion here.
Human health is all anyone has, as all we have grows out of it.
It's everyone's duty to protect that in any legal means he can.
Not least a Minister of Environment.
You can't mark the moves of gombeen men while worrying about high ideals.