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

In my judgment, the errors above tainted the Adjudication Panel’s conclusion on sanction. The reasoning on sanction is very brief – mostly a series of conclusions. Although the Adjudication Panel refers, in the last words of paragraph 117, to the public interest in declaring and upholding standards, it is impossible to draw any conclusions on what sanction they would have imposed if they had not made the findings they did on insight, remediation and risk of repetition.

If the Defendant had not erred, in their treatment of insight, remediation and risk of repetition, I would not have granted any relief in relation to sanction. Any psychotherapist who begins a sexual relationship with his patient only 10 days after their therapy has concluded should realise that their conduct might lead to termination. The ISG is clear that sexual misconduct is likely to lead to termination. It is clear from paragraph 5.4.4 of the ISG that sexual misconduct includes having a sexual relationship with an ex-client, if not enough time has passed since therapy to ensure ‘proper closure’. In this case, not enough time had passed. 10 days was plainly not enough to ensure ‘proper closure’.

Furthermore, in my judgment, para. 5.4.4 of the ISG does not condone a therapist taking steps, while treating a patient, to ‘open the door’ to a future sexual relationship – whether that future relationship is to begin 10 days, ‘a while’ or six months after the treatment concluded. Adjudication Panels are entitled to impose serious sanctions on therapists who take such steps.

I reject the submission of Mr Butler, made for the first time in reply, that the Adjudication Panel had applied a ‘blanket rule’ that sexual misconduct should result in termination. In my judgment, the reasoning in relation to sanction is not suggestive of such an approach. On the contrary, it is clear from paragraph 117 that the Adjudication Panel had regard to the factors set out in paragraph 5.4.5 of the ISG. If the Adjudication Panel had reached fair and reasonable conclusions on risk of repetition, then termination would certainly have been open to them.