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

The Adjudication Panel found that the Claimant had breached Clauses 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 32 and 37 of the Code (§§78-82). In finding Clause 5 breached the Adjudication Panel said:

“80.

the Panel concluded that there was indeed harm or the potential for harm. Client A was deprived of her therapist. Her son was deprived of a therapist. The Panel could not determine whether Client A’s relationship broke down due to these events. It may be it was already rocky, it may be this is the real reason why she remained in therapy with the Registrant. If so, the Registrant colluded with Client A or took advantage of her feelings rather than treating her. If this was not the case, then his actions contributed to the breakdown and clearly harmed Client A’s partner.”

The Adjudication Panel held that the Claimant had seriously failed to meet the standards of the profession and, therefore, was guilty of serious misconduct (§83 & §84).

The Adjudication Panel went on to consider the issue of impairment. They held that they ‘could not exclude the risk of future repetition’. In explaining this finding, the Panel said the following:

“91… It took full account of the Registrant’s good character both in terms of propensity and veracity but, the Panel also noted that the Registrant had had the benefit of advice from a supervisor at the time he acted and this did not deter him. In addition, when he gave evidence, despite the training undertaken and the references, it was not clear to the Panel that the Registrant had grasped the failure to be his. He did not treat her as a client. He did not understand the need to keep boundaries in place to protect a conflicted client. There appeared to be little reference in the Registrant’s reflective statements contained in Bundle R2 to the training and the learning outcomes that would affect his future practice.

92.

The Panel was struck by the Registrant’s continued assertions that Client A was flirty or made assertive advance and his phrase that he “chose to be seduced over the boundary”. Such phraseology places the blame on Client A as does his assertion that he felt disempowered and saw her as empowered. It was not at all clear that even now the Registrant accepted his conduct was unprofessional and/or sexually motivated. The Panel noted the various certificates and the personal development it was said the Registrant had undertaken but, there was little or nothing in any reflective piece that set out the Registrant’s understanding of that learning, how it had altered his practise and how this prevented recurrence.

93.

The Panel acknowledged that the Registrant had shown some insight into his misconduct, but it was limited. The Registrant’s continued suggestion of blame on the part of Client A and his failure to grasp that the fault was and remains with him left the Panel unable to conclude that there was no risk of repetition.

94.

Whilst the Panel was told that the Registrant had suffered from issues concerning his mental health and was himself vulnerable, no medical or other professional evidence was provided to support this assertion. The Panel was thus unable to place much weight on this assertion.

95.

The Panel considered the submission that the Registrant’s employer and the Interim Orders Panel (IO Panel) had found no risk. The Panel was not convinced of either submission. First, the Registrant’s employer had moved the Registrant to a non-client facing position to manage the situation pending determination in the regulatory process. That was indicative of managing potential risk pending a decision and is quite different to asserting they had found no risk at all. As for the IO Panel whilst it had considered some of the papers, it had not had the benefit of hearing the evidence received by this panel.” [Emphasis added]

Further, they held that a finding of impairment was justified to declare and uphold standards and maintain confidence in the profession (§97 - §98).