DISCIPLINARY PANEL HEARING – 18 June 2008
Mr Keith Cairns
Co. Fermanagh, N. Ireland
DETERMINATION
Findings with Reasons:
- That the facts are found proved
- That the facts amount to conduct unbefitting a Member of the Institution
- That the conduct is such that the Relevant Person is liable to disciplinary action.
The Relevant Person has admitted to plagiarising his Critical Analysis document, from another student member’s submission, in September 2007. This formed part of the overall assessment of his professional competence. The Relevant Person denied that he had any intention to deceive the Institution. As such, he denied that this invokes disciplinary action and he wished to leave the matter of whether or not this constitutes conduct unbefitting a Member of the Institution, to the Panel.
The Panel heard from the Relevant Person and his mother and from Mrs Buckley, Solicitor for the Institution, as well as receiving legal advice from the Legal Assessor, which the Panel accepted.
The Panel has accepted the Relevant Person’s admission as to the facts of the case and that he plagiarised his Critical Analysis in September 2007. The Panel has heard nothing to demur from that view.
The Panel has determined that the Relevant Person’s plagiarism of another’s document and using it to formulate his own Critical Analysis is a breach of Paragraphs 1, 2, 4 and 8 of the RICS’ “Maintaining Professional and Ethical Standards”, in that the actions taken by the Relevant Person show on his part a lack of integrity, failures to act honourably, to be accountable for his actions and to set a good example.
Thus, the Panel has determined that this amounts to conduct unbefitting a Member of the Institution, which, as a Regulatory and Registration Body expects that Members, including student Members, should be familiar with and adhere to the profession’s Rules of Conduct as embodied in the Standards document.
The Panel has determined that the Relevant Person’s conduct, whilst not deliberate deceit, was reckless, in that he had a duty to foresee the outcome of his actions, and that in so acting he failed to have regard to the consequences of those actions. These could have led to a perception of deception if known by members of the public. The Panel noted in the course of its questions to the Relevant Person, that he had asked for the copied document. He then recklessly misused it under pressure of lack of time and other factors. However, the Panel has determined that by so doing, he created the potential opportunity to further his career by this action, had the matter not been discovered.
Thus, the Panel has concluded that this conduct, which is a failure to adhere to Bye-Law V 2 (1) of the RICS Bye-Laws 1973, as amended in 2007, is such as to give rise to a liability to disciplinary action under Bye-Law V 3(1) (c) of the 1973 Bye-Laws, as amended.
Determination on Penalty:
The Panel makes the following order: A Caution Order that the Relevant Person shall not repeat the conduct and action that has resulted in this matter coming before a Panel of the RICS Disciplinary Committee.
In reaching its decision, the Panel has heard the submissions from Mrs Buckley, the Relevant Person and his mother. It has heard and accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice. In all its deliberations and in its reasons, the Panel has exercised the principle of proportionality. The Panel also has paid regard to all the Guidance documents.
The Panel has noted that the Relevant Person had made a good start to his career and that by his actions he had learnt a hard lesson. Further, he had not sought to benefit from his actions. In fact, the Panel noted that the Relevant Person had suffered considerably by having lost his job, albeit that it was not clear if that was by reason of this matter.
The Relevant Person’s former supervisor, had written to RICS for the purposes of today, to say that the Relevant Person had been under pressure and had panicked. He added that this was out of character.
The Panel accepted the Relevant Person’s word that he had been the person at his former employer to have created a training and supervision programme. He then underwent the training programme, with apparently little support from his supervisor or counsellor. Had there been a more mature training and supervision system in situ at his former employers, with precedents available, the Relevant Person might not have had to react so drastically under the pressure that he found himself.
That pressure included a growing young family with, at the time, the recent birth of a baby and the commensurate demands that this entailed.
The Panel also noted that this was a victimless matter in that the only person to have suffered was the Relevant Person. The Panel also noted that the Relevant Person admitted the matters reasonably early on in the proceedings.
These mitigating factors were taken into account by the Panel.
However, the Panel also noted that the Relevant Person could have acted in a more sensible and thought-out way by seeking the advice of the Institution and/or others on deferring his Critical Analysis. This simple expedient would probably have avoided this entire matter being before this Panel.
The Panel first considered imposing a Caution Order. The Panel noted that the RICS Guidance on Sanction for this outcome recommends it for cases where a member has acted through inexperience, where the breach is minor and is unlikely to be repeated.
For the reasons stated above, the Panel is of the view that this case falls within these criteria. Thus, the Panel considers that the public would remain protected and public confidence would not be undermined if a Caution Order was imposed on the Relevant Person. Therefore, the Panel considers that this is a just and proportionate penalty in this case for those reasons.
Determination on Publication and Costs:
Costs:
The Panel has determined that the Relevant Person shall pay £2500 of the total costs claimed of £4486.03.
The Panel has determined that the circumstances of the case and the evidence given by the Relevant Person and his mother of the hardship of the Relevant Person, is such as to conclude that the fair, just, reasonable and proportionate amount payable shall be £ 2500, to be payable within 90 days of today’s date.
Publication:
The details of this decision shall be published in RICS Business and on the RICS website only. The Panel does not order publication in any other medium, including in any newspapers, because the Panel does not consider it appropriate in this case.
The Panel reminds the Relevant Person that he has a right of appeal within 28 days under Rule 59 of the Disciplinary, Registration and Appeal Panel Rules 2008.
