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

The Adjudication Panel reconvened on 10 February 2023 to consider sanction. In the meantime, the Claimant provided a further training certificate, dated 1 February 2023, and further evidence from Dr Wilkinson, i.e. a mentorship report, dated 31 January 2023. This report stated:

“I have previously prepared two reports detailing the work Neale and I did and stating my professional view of his personal and emotional growth since our first session. In these reports I expressed the professional judgment that Mr Haddon is not a danger to the public, and has learnt and continues to learn from his actions and experience… in my professional opinion additional supervision would be an effective means of addressing any remaining risks related to the conduct that brought him before the PCC.”

Dr Wilkinson then outlined what the goals of supervision would be, and set out five “major ones”, and said that this should be for a period of six to nine months with fortnightly sessions.

The Adjudication Panel determined the appropriate sanction was termination (§99- §117). In reaching this decision, the Adjudication Panel said that it had had regard to the ISG but exercised its own independent judgement. The Adjudication Panel’s reasoning on sanction included the following:

“102.

The Panel received and took account of two documents submitted on behalf of the Registrant namely a mentorship statement by Dr Wilkinson dated 31 January 2023 and a Training Certificate dated 1 February 2023.

…

105.

When looking at areas of mitigation the Panel took account of the Registrant’s previous good character and his engagement with the regulatory process. It noted that he had recently undertaken some form of CPD training as shown by the certificate but, the Panel received no information as to the length, depth or type or training undertaken nor of the outcomes and/or what the Registrant had learned. As such the Panel was unable to place much weight upon this. The Panel considered the report by Dr Wilkinson but observed that it was for the most part theoretical. It included headlines as to what may be covered in supervision sessions but no detail as to what the supervision would entail, goals, outcomes and/or the ability of the Registrant to learn from that supervision. The panel remained of the view that the Registrant had demonstrated only limited insight into his failings.

…

107.

When considering the risk of repetition, the Panel acknowledged that the Regulatory process can be a salutary one and thus have a preventative effect. However, of more importance is the issue of insight - understanding why events took the turn they did, taking responsibility for them, learning and/or taking steps to ensure they will not recur. The Panel did not consider that the Registrant understood the power imbalance between himself and Client A nor the fact that she was vulnerable. The Registrant still placed blame upon Client A. There was little if any information from which to conclude that the Registrant had sufficient insight into his role or his own conduct, feelings, or weaknesses to prevent recurrence. Neither the CPD certificate nor the report from Dr Wilkinson addressed this indeed the report suggested that any work would occur over many months which rather indicated an on-going risk. As such the Panel concluded that there was a risk of repetition.” [Emphasis added]

The Adjudication Panel went through possible sanctions in ascending order and said the following about suspension and termination:

“Suspension Order (for a maximum of one year)

116.

The Panel acknowledged that suspension would affect the ability of the Registrant to practise and went some way to marking the gravity of the misconduct. However, the Panel was of the view that suspension did not address the Registrant’s continued lack of insight or understanding of the relationship between himself and Client A. The Panel had received little evidence to address remediation or the risk of repetition. A suspension would not address these latter concerns and as such the Panel concluded it was not sufficient to meet the seriousness of the case.

Termination of Registration

117.

Finally, the Panel considered the sanction of terminating the Registrant’s registration and concluded that this was indeed the only appropriate sanction in this case. The Registrant had engaged in a sexual relationship with a vulnerable patient over a period of time and, whilst he had admitted some of what occurred his admissions were neither clear nor full. He continued to place some responsibility on Client A and had provided little evidence of insight or remediation. The Registrant had acted in breach of the trust placed in him and had breached fundamental values of the profession. The Panel was of the view that it was so serious that no lesser sanction would protect the public or the public interest in declaring and upholding standards.” [Emphasis added]