30 NOV. 2012
Mr Sackeer Hameem
Appeal Panel hearing - 28 November 2012
Catherine Audcent (Lay)
(i) The Panel is satisfied that the Registration Panel did not make an error of law or an error of procedure in reaching its Decision;
(ii) The Panel has also considered whether the Registration Panel was wrong in not exercising its discretion to allow Mr Hameem’s application for re-admission on 4 July. The Panel is mindful of the purpose of today’s hearing which is for it to review the Decision. That is not to say that the Panel should not engage with the merits of the Decision and in reaching its decision today, the Panel noted the reasons given by the Registration Panel on 4 July for refusing re-admission, including the timing of Mr Hameem’s application for re-admission in light of the gravity of the disciplinary findings which led to Mr Hameem’s expulsion;
(iii) The Panel also notes that the Registration Panel on 4 July, when considering whether or not Mr Hameem was a fit and proper person for re-admission to membership and whether or not his admission was in the best interests of RICS, found that Mr Hameem had failed to satisfy them that he was a fit and proper person for re-admission to membership and that he had not presented sufficient independent evidence to them to support his assertions that he had undertaken courses and gained an understanding of RICS ethics. In refusing Mr Hameem’s application, the Registration Panel was also not satisfied that Mr Hameem had taken sufficient steps to address the issues for which he was expelled. The Registration Panel did not however have the benefit of the additional evidence presented to this Panel today pursuant to Mr Hameem’s appeal application found at page 8 of the bundle;
(iv) The Panel finds, without seeking to criticise the Registration Panel, that in light of the additional evidence before it today, which the Registration Panel did not have the benefit of seeing, and in particular taking into account the passage of time since the events on or about 10 June 2009 which led to Mr Hameem’s expulsion, that there are sufficient grounds to find that the Decision was wrong;
(v) For this reason, the Panel allows Mr Hameem’s appeal and has decided to refer the matter back to a Registration Panel for a new hearing in accordance with Rule 69(d).
The Panel orders publication in accordance with the provisions of Supplement 3 to the Sanctions Policy dated 1 January 2008.