King's / Queen's Bench Division of the High Court

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

Fecha: 27-Jun-2025

The allegations and documentary evidence before the Adjudication Panel at the start of the hearing

The allegations and documentary evidence before the Adjudication Panel at the start of the hearing

31.

In November 2022 the Defendant’s Adjudication Panel held a hearing. Some allegations were withdrawn at the start of the hearing. The live factual allegations against the Claimant at the beginning of the hearing were as follows:

“…
2Whilst being in a therapeutic relationship with Client A between August 2018 and December 2019
…
(b)
you hugged Client A.
…
3.
On 28th December 2019 you:
a.
Engaged in flirty text messages with Client A.
b.
Agreed to meet Client A at your home.
c.
Accepted a LinkedIn request from Client A.
4(a) On 30th or 31st December 2019 you entered into a sexual relationship with Client A.
5.
On 11th January 2020 you sent a text message to Client A stating: “Still put. About to go home. Wish you were in my bed when I get there. I have fallen for you, bit you already knew that. Xxx (sic)”
6.
On unknown dates between December 2019 and June 2020:
a.
Engaged in flirty text messages with Client A.
b.
Was in a sexual relationship with Client A.
c.
Engaged in telephone sex with Client A.
(d)
Sent and received nude pictures from Client A.
(e)
Discussed having sex with Client A’s friend while Client A was present.
7.
Engaged in the above actions despite your supervisor who had previously assessed Client A warning you to be careful, that it was a grey area and not to do anything that may jeopardise your career.
…
9.
In January 2021 proposed a date of 27 January at 18:00 to meet Client A’s son for his anxiety and panic attacks
10.
Offered to meet with Client A’s son following the conclusion of your sessions with Insight

32.

Each of these allegations was admitted.

33.

Allegation 11 was that the Claimant’s actions above were inappropriate and unprofessional. This was admitted for allegations 3-7 only.

34.

Allegation 12 was that the Claimant’s actions at 1-6 above were sexually motivated. This was admitted in respect of allegations 3-6 only.

35.

The Defendant further alleged that the behaviours set out above were in breach of the UKCP Ethical Principles and Code of Professional Conduct (2009) and (2019).

36.

The issues for the Adjudication Panel to resolve were:

Whether the hug (allegation 2b) was sexually motivated, inappropriate, and/or unprofessional.

ii)

Whether offering to meet with Client A’s son (allegations 9 and 10) was inappropriate and/or unprofessional.

iii)

Whether the Claimant’s fitness to practise was impaired by reason of misconduct.

iv)

If so, what sanction if any to impose.

37.

The Claimant produced a witness statement, dated 31 October 2022. He said he had committed to learning from the situation and ensuring it never happens again. He said he had used the time to reflect on his past conduct and had ‘come to terms with being accountable’ for all that happened. He said that he was truly sorry for the impact his actions had on Client A, her family and the reputation of the profession. He produced a bundle with ‘substantial evidence of the actionable steps I have taken’ to demonstrate insight in order to demonstrate that he posed no risk.

38.

The Claimant’s bundle of evidence included the following evidence from Dr Wilkinson, his mentor:

A letter dated 18 July 2021 addressed ‘To Whom It May Concern’. In that letter Dr Wilkinson said that there were, broadly, two kinds of ‘sexual transgression and boundary infraction: those who lapse because of inadequate addressing of their, in the broad sense, countertransference processes, and who are clearly able to learn, and those who are serious recidivist whose behaviour will not change as a result of self examination.’ Dr Wilkinson said “I am entirely clear in my own mind and experience that Neale falls into the first category”. He also stated that Client A was “a resilient individual who invited the relationship with eyes open. This relationship definitely short-circuited the therapeutic process… but was not an encounter which constituted a danger to the public”.

ii)

A letter dated 27 January 2022 ‘To Whom It May Concern’. In this Dr Wilkinson states “I believe and am convinced, in my own mind and experience, that having known Neale during this period of mentorship, but having previously met him as a colleague some years ago, this was a one off incident.’

iii)

A letter dated 25 October 2022 ‘To Whom It May Concern’ Dr Wilkinson says “some of this material covers similar points as my previous report: this is an update”. He outlines the work the Registrant had undertaken studying the philosophical bases of ethics which led him to Virtue Ethics. He says, “I am therefore certain that he is in no way a danger to the public” .

39.

The Claimant also provided testimonials from friends and several colleagues. The colleagues each spoke very highly of the Claimant. Many of them expressly said that they would continue to recommend the Claimant, despite being aware of the allegations. Several spoke of his ability to reflect on mistakes and change – e.g. that he was ‘genuinely self- reflective in his approach’ and that he was ‘open to reflecting and learning from mistakes’.

40.

The Claimant also provided several certificates of courses he had completed – Values in Practice, Probity & Ethics in Practice, Information Governance, Professional Ethics for Helping Professions, Maintaining Professional Boundaries.

41.

The Claimant also provided the ‘statement of learning’ and personal development plan which he had provided to the UKCP’s Interim Orders Panel.