KB-2023-003302 - [2025] EWHC 1628 (KB)

The Adjudication Panel found all allegations proven. In relation to the hug, they found:

“47.

Having considered all the evidence the Panel determined that to hug Client A was both inappropriate and unprofessional. The Panel was of the view that there were clear warning signs that should have put the Registrant on notice that Client A may have feelings toward him. He certainly had feelings toward her. It was incumbent upon him to maintain firm boundaries and to politely reinforce those boundaries. He could have done so by refusing her request but did not. His failure was both inappropriate and unprofessional.

…

54.

In relation to Allegation 12 (sexual motivation) regarding allegation 2b (hug), the Panel noted that the Registrant said he was attracted to Client A including sexually attracted to her. Whilst he had not acted upon that attraction over the period of treatment, the Registrant described Client A as flirty and, toward the end of the treatment sessions asked him a personal and potentially intimate question. He blushed and she drew the conclusion that he did find her attractive, but he failed to rebut that. It was plain that there was a mutual attraction between Client A and the Registrant. and this included a sexual attraction.

55.

The Panel noted that the Registrant was sufficiently concerned about his feelings toward Client A and/or hers toward him, that he sought advice from a supervisor. The gist of the advice was to the effect that he should maintain boundaries. He was advised by his colleague who had previously assessed Client A to be particularly cautious in respect of her. He was also advised by his peer group supervision not to do anything that would jeopardise his career.

56.

When describing his state of mind at the time he said that he did not expect to see her again however, he also conceded that he thought he might after a period of time – he was not sure but thought this might be some months. It was not at all clear to the Panel that he regarded the “hug and goodbye” as the end of their relationship. It was more likely the case that he hoped it was not and he had previously left that door open in that hope.

57.

Whilst there may have been an element of saying goodbye, the Panel was satisfied that there was also an element of the Registrant wanting the hug and he did so because he was sexually attracted to Client A. The Panel was satisfied that he either derived some gratification from the hug or engaged in it to ‘keep the door open’ in pursuit of a future sexual relationship. He had a clear choice to respond differently but chose to hug her. Having received advice and having recognised his own sexual urges the Registrant ignored the advice and followed his urges.

58.

Having come to that conclusion the Panel then considered the subsequent events to see if they supported or opposed such a conclusion. Having finished the final session on 18 December the Registrant was contacted by Client A over the Christmas period (28 December 2019). He admitted that he felt excited by this contact. At this time, and in the days that followed, he still had the opportunity to reflect and change course but rather than declining further contact as he could and should have done, within days they had entered a sexual relationship. The contact by her and his excitement at this was only days after they had previously parted. Their relationship began only a few days after that. The Panel found the timescale to be important in that it seemed unlikely the Registrant’s motivation had moved from ‘entirely proper’ to ‘entirely improper’ in little more than a week. The Panel found it more likely that the Registrant had held such a motive when he hugged Client A only days before. The Panel rejected the suggestion that this was a matter of ‘reverse engineering’, it was a matter of common sense in following the events as they unfolded.”

The Adjudication Panel then heard submissions on misconduct and impairment. Counsel for the Defendant made the following submissions on impairment, risk of repetition and insight:

“[A] very significant swathe of the allegations faced by the Registrant have been admitted and there is clear evidence before you that he acknowledges wrongdoing. With that, the panel would be entitled to conclude that it would be inappropriate to categorise this as a case in which the Registrant has no insight into past failings. Clearly, there is evidence of insight, certainly in respect of a large number of the allegations that he faced. It's also right to acknowledge that not only has the Registrant acknowledged wrongdoing, but there's evidence before you of him actively taking steps to address it. There you will note, and I don't want to touch upon the territory of my learned friend, Mr Butler, and naturally he will go through this in more detail. But you will note there's evidence of what may be referred to as tailored CPD and going on courses and training and discussing matters with his peers, all focused on the question of professional boundaries. So, clearly, this is something that the Registrant has reflected long and hard upon and that of course is all to his credit, and all of those are factors that the counsel acknowledge you're entitled to have and should have regard to when addressing the question of the risk of repeat. But balanced against that, Madam, the counsel invites this committee to conclude that you cannot preclude a risk of repeat in this case, notwithstanding all of that that I've alerted you to, and here in particular, Madam, we note that whilst the Registrant has admitted a significant number of the allegations that he's faced, he denied that he did anything that was sexually motivated whilst Client A is in effect being treated by him. Specifically, he denied that the hug that he provided to her during the course of a therapeutic session, be it at the end of it, but still importantly, whilst he was acting as his as her therapist, the counsel would submit, and she was very much his client. He denied that he'd done anything that was sexually motivated. Here, Madam, the counsel naturally notes what it is that the panel have found so far as your factual findings. In summary, the counsel acknowledge that the panel have noted a potential lack of understanding on the part of the Registrant as to the inappropriateness and unprofessionalism of providing a hug in this particular context, and furthermore not acknowledging that it was sexually motivated. Naturally that brings with it questions surrounding insight…”

Mr Butler made submissions on behalf of the Claimant. He submitted that the Claimant had developed insight and would not pose a risk of repetition. He referred to the reports of Dr Wilkinson.

The Adjudication Panel announced its decision that it found misconduct and impairment with reasons that would follow.