Skip to main content
The Actuary: The magazine of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries - return to the homepage Logo of The Actuary website
  • Search
  • Visit The Actuary Magazine on Facebook
  • Visit The Actuary Magazine on LinkedIn
  • Visit @TheActuaryMag on Twitter
Visit the website of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries Logo of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries

Main navigation

  • News
  • Features
    • General Features
    • Interviews
    • Students
    • Opinion
  • Topics
  • Knowledge
    • Business Skills
    • Careers
    • Events
    • Predictions by The Actuary
    • Whitepapers
    • Moody's - Climate Risk Insurers series
    • Webinars
    • Podcasts
  • Jobs
  • IFoA
    • CEO Comment
    • IFoA News
    • People & Social News
    • President Comment
  • Archive
Quick links:
  • Home
  • The Actuary Issues
  • December 2015
12

Adjudication panel reports: Mr X

Open-access content Monday 30th November 2015 — updated 5.50pm, Wednesday 29th April 2020

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
This article appeared in our December 2015 issue of The Actuary.
Click here to view this issue
Filed in
12

You might also like...

Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Linked in
  • Mail
  • Print

Latest Jobs

Deputy Head of Capital Modelling

London (Central)
£110000 - £130000 per annum
Reference
144789

Head of Analytics (Actuarial)

London (Central)
£130000 - £165000 per annum
Reference
144788

Pensions Actuarial Analyst - GMP Equalisation

London (Central)
£ dependent upon experience
Reference
143745
See all jobs »
 
 

Today's top reads

 
 

Sign up to our newsletter

News, jobs and updates

Sign up

Subscribe to The Actuary

Receive the print edition straight to your door

Subscribe
Spread-iPad-slantB-june.png

Topics

  • Data Science
  • Investment
  • Risk & ERM
  • Pensions
  • Environment
  • Soft skills
  • General Insurance
  • Regulation Standards
  • Health care
  • Technology
  • Reinsurance
  • Global
  • Life insurance
​
FOLLOW US
The Actuary on LinkedIn
@TheActuaryMag on Twitter
Facebook: The Actuary Magazine
CONTACT US
The Actuary
Tel: (+44) 020 7880 6200
​

IFoA

About IFoA
Become an actuary
IFoA Events
About membership

Information

Privacy Policy
Terms & Conditions
Cookie Policy
Think Green

Get in touch

Contact us
Advertise with us
Subscribe to The Actuary Magazine
Contribute

The Actuary Jobs

Actuarial job search
Pensions jobs
General insurance jobs
Solvency II jobs

© 2023 The Actuary. The Actuary is published on behalf of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries by Redactive Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Reproduction of any part is not allowed without written permission.

Redactive Media Group Ltd, 71-75 Shelton Street, London WC2H 9JQ