A prominent architect has been struck off after he formed a romantic relationship with a trainee and helped her to cheat on her final exams.
A disciplinary committee heard that Paul Treacy had an unblemished record until the allegations over his role in the qualification of a junior architect were made.
Treacy, 57, headed an architectural firm in his name that had won awards for its designs of medical buildings in the UK and abroad.
One of his most notable buildings was the Halo Laboratory in London, described as a “brutalist” design that was “one of the largest and most prestigious pathology laboratories” in the country. Treacy’s firm was also the project architect for a trauma centre in Islamabad and he worked on a transport hub in Incheon in South Korea.
A disciplinary panel of the Architects Registration Board was told that Treacy started a romantic relationship with a junior colleague who was completing the final part of her qualification. He was a mentor and an examination supervisor for the woman, who was referred to only as “Person A” during the proceedings.
The panel was told that Treacy opened the exam paper before the test and drafted her case study before its submission.
As a result, the panel said in its ruling, he had “abused the trust placed in him” by the Royal Institute of British Architects, having “prioritised his relationship with Person A and disregarded the requirements of his roles”.
Treacy was also found to have provided model answers to the exam question and signed a declaration saying that the test had been completed honestly.
After charges were brought before the panel, Treacy “continued to place blame on Person A for his conduct”, accusing her of having put him under duress.
The panel ruled that the only suitable punishment was to throw Treacy out of the profession — although he can apply to be restored to the architects’ register after two years.
In the ruling, Sadia Zouq, a barrister who chaired the board’s professional conduct committee, described “a pattern of poor conduct of dishonesty and lack of integrity that had taken place over a period of time”. She said that Treacy “had opportunities throughout this period to have corrected his conduct; he actively chose not to do so”.
Zouq added that Treacy’s “pre-meditated” conduct had been “dishonest” and “deliberate”, and he had admitted to having “significantly” contributed to Person A’s case study. He also admitted to having crafted model answers to questions for her examination.
• Norman Foster: ‘My best building is not a building’
The disciplinary panel was particularly concerned that Treacy had failed to disclose his conduct for several years before he eventually reported himself because of “professional reputational damage being caused by Person A”. According to the panel, that behaviour demonstrated a “lack of understanding and appreciation of his duties as a regulated professional”.
The ruling went on to say that there had been “a substantial risk of harm to the wider public” because a prospective architect achieved a qualification “for which they had received undue assistance and support”.