Open-access content
30th November 2015
ajudication panel reports: Mr X
On 28 September 2015, the adjudication panel considered an allegation of misconduct against the respondent, relating to a criminal conviction for inflicting grievous bodily harm, contrary to section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
The panel determined that the nature of the offence of which the respondent had been convicted was such that the respondent's behaviour had fallen below the standards defined in rule 1.6 of the Disciplinary Scheme.
Moreover, the panel relied on rule 1.12(b) of the scheme in determining that the conviction of an indictable offence against the respondent amounted to prima facie evidence of misconduct.
In considering sanctions, the panel noted that the respondent had reported the matter promptly and took into account the mitigation put forward by the respondent, including the impact on his professional and personal life and the remorse he had shown. The following sanction was imposed: a reprimand.
The panel agreed that, given the particular circumstances of this case, there was good reason to exercise its discretion to withhold confidential details and anonymise the identity of the respondent in order to protect third parties.
A copy of the panel's full determination, including reasons for its decision, can be found on the IFoA's website at bit.ly/1WMjhF4
The panel determined that the nature of the offence of which the respondent had been convicted was such that the respondent's behaviour had fallen below the standards defined in rule 1.6 of the Disciplinary Scheme.
Moreover, the panel relied on rule 1.12(b) of the scheme in determining that the conviction of an indictable offence against the respondent amounted to prima facie evidence of misconduct.
In considering sanctions, the panel noted that the respondent had reported the matter promptly and took into account the mitigation put forward by the respondent, including the impact on his professional and personal life and the remorse he had shown. The following sanction was imposed: a reprimand.
The panel agreed that, given the particular circumstances of this case, there was good reason to exercise its discretion to withhold confidential details and anonymise the identity of the respondent in order to protect third parties.
A copy of the panel's full determination, including reasons for its decision, can be found on the IFoA's website at bit.ly/1WMjhF4
Filed in: