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

Having withdrawn some allegations, Mr Stevens, counsel for the Defendant, opened the case. He said the following in relation to the hug:

“The reason for that allegation, in overview, Madam, is that [the UKCP] acknowledge, in isolation, the act of hugging a client may well be entirely innocent. There may be reasons other than sexual motivation for it. It's the context in which that hug was given that is of particular importance. Here, the [UKCP] submits, such context should not be ignored, and when one considers it, it decidedly points towards the conclusion that the motivation behind that hug, in fact, was sexual gratification, because the [UKCP] will be inviting the committee to conclude that, at the point that that hug was given at the end of the therapy sessions, based on the Registrant's evidence alone, what it is that he has served about his relationship with Client A, it is clear that there was a strong sexual attraction from the Registrant towards Client A. So the content in which the hug was given is of importance, and in due course, Madam, you will be invited to consider evidence that there was a strong sexual attraction, and here, of note, Madam, the committee will be invited to consider the fact that, but two weeks later, after this final treatment session, the Registrant accepts that he entered into a sexual relationship with Client A.”

The Claimant was then called and cross-examined. The transcript of the cross-examination about the hug included the following:

“Mr Stevens: So there was nothing untoward, nothing different about this?

Neale Haddon: I mean, hugging is - you know, the way I was trained in humanistic therapy was to use touch and hugging as part of the normal process of psychotherapy. It's usual for me to accept hugs from clients, particularly at the end of therapy. There are considerations about hugging in terms of how comfortable a therapist is with that with a particular client, and the particular client themselves. So, you know, particularly for vulnerable clients it's maybe not advisable. For other clients it is, but particularly at the end of therapy. I mean, I understand in the context of how this has panned out, of how this moment looks, but, because it was right at the end of the therapy, and because she requested the hug - I wasn't expecting to see her again - I felt it would have been more rude not to accept it, really.

…

Mr Stevens: So, she's been flirting with you prior to this hug. You had formed a view that she's attracted to you, and you're attracted to her. Was it not, in those circumstances, therefore, inappropriate for you to have hugged her in those circumstances?

Neale Haddon: I did wonder that for a long time. Obviously, I've had 20 months to process all this, and review and reflect, and take remedial action, but it's not something I would normally do, to refuse... I think if we'd have continued the sessions, then, in hindsight, I should have behaved differently, but right at the end, the conclusion of therapy, I don't... I didn't expect to see her again.

Mr Stevens: I'm partly asking the question, Mr Haddon, again, I'm drawing from what you yourself previously said about this specific incident, and you said that it was a stupid thing to do.

Neale Haddon: Yes, I did think that for a long time, and in hindsight, if I'd known what I know now, I wouldn't do that.

Mr Stevens: Right. So if you thought it was a stupid thing to do at the time, when you were asked about this, do you maintain it was a stupid thing to do?

Neale Haddon: No, at the time I didn't think it was a stupid thing to do. I did go for a period where I was reflecting on all my professional boundaries, and particularly the way I've been trained to be comfortable with hugging clients, and to be comfortable with self-disclosure, and really reeled that back, and now, I don't think that was the problem. I think the problem was not being really clear with her that we couldn't meet up after the conclusion of therapy. Then, if I'd have said that, when she asked for a hug, a hug at the end of therapy would have just been a hug at the end of therapy.

…

Mr Stevens: But my question is, do you accept that you failed to show temperance and restraint during that final therapy session in hugging her, against the backdrop that we've explored, that you shouldn't have done that, and actually, what you gave way to was your sexual attraction and a desire for sexual gratification?

Neale Haddon: I regularly hug clients when they ask, particularly at the conclusion of therapy. That's not an unusual thing. I think what I would most do differently in that final session, when she asked me if we could meet up for a Christmas drink and I said, 'No, at least not for a while,' the at least not for a while was the bit I should have done differently. I should have said no.’

The Claimant later accepted in cross-examination: ‘I had lost sight of the inherent power differential. I acknowledge that…’

The Claimant was re-examined and then asked questions by the Adjudication Panel. One panel member, Ms Taylor, asked what a reasonable period of time would be before developing a relationship with an ex-patient. The Claimant said it depends on the patient. He said with Client A that, at the time he thought it was OK but he no longer thought it was OK.

A second panel member, Ms Iona, asked when there is not ‘vulnerabilty’ in a patient. The Claimant said ‘it’s all relative’. He said: ‘I say more vulnerable, I mean the clients where there's an obvious power imbalance in terms of personal power, and in terms of all the rest of it. When I say that Client A was not vulnerable in that sense, I meant that she had charisma, and personal power, and expertise power. Not all clients would have that. It is relative. I recognise what you're saying. There was a vulnerability in terms of, you know, she came to me for therapy with a particular issue, which was driving phobia, and so there is a vulnerability there.’ Ms Iona asked if the Claimant did not think ‘there's always a power imbalance when someone seeks help from a professional that they don't have experience of?’ The Claimant responded: ‘There's always the inherent power differential of, as a therapist, the therapist has power because it's their role. I did lose sight of that.’

The Chair then intervened and said: ‘I just want to follow on that particular point in relation to this power approach. We have a professional who's been trained, who is on a register, and you have a client who you've just said is vulnerable because they're coming to see you, at that point anyway. You've indicated that because in this case Client A had great charisma, and she appeared to be powerful in her role and all of that, you've outlined that... Are you saying when you make all those statements that the power is equal between a client and a therapist?’

The Claimant replied:

Counsel for the Defendant then made further submissions. He submitted that the hug was ‘an example of [the Claimant’s] sexual urges getting the better of him, for want of a better word, and him acting for the purposes of sexual gratification in having that close physical contact that’s involved in a hug’.

Counsel for the Claimant then made submissions. He said the hug was ‘innocent’ and it didn’t make any difference that later the Claimant and Client A had a sexual relationship. He said there was ‘no evidence’ to support the submission that the Claimant at the time had a strong sexual attraction to Client A.

The legal assessor directed the Adjudication Panel that sexual motivation is an act done ‘either in pursuit of sexual gratification, or in pursuit of a sexual relationship’.