Registrant A

Preliminary Matters

1. The Panel agree to anonymise the Registrant’s name for the protection of M and her children.

Application to proceed in private
2. The Panel acknowledged that there is a strong public interest in ensuring that hearings are conducted in public to ensure transparency. However, the Panel accepted the submissions made by Ms Steels, and supported by Mr Saad, and decided that the whole of the hearing should be held in private. In reaching this decision the Panel had regard to the protection of the private lives of M and her children and the Registrant’s health. The Panel took into account from the evidence in the bundle that the private life of M and her children is inextricably linked to the Allegation. The Panel concluded it would not be feasible to conduct only part of the hearing in private and therefore determined to hold the whole hearing in private. A decision to hold the hearing in private would also provide protection in relation to the Registrant’s health matters.

Decision on Facts
1. The Panel concluded that facts 1(a), 1(b), 1(c), 1(d) in part, 1(f) do amount to serious professional misconduct.

Decision on impairment
2. The Panel considered the Registrant’s current fitness to practise firstly from the personal perspective and then from the wider public perspective. In relation to the personal component, in accordance with the Practice Note, the Panel had regard to whether the conduct in this case is easily remediable, whether it has been remedied and whether it was highly unlikely to be repeated.

3. The Panel reminded itself that the misconduct it had found in this case is in relation to a breach of professional boundaries (1(a),1(b),1(c), 1(d) in part and 1(f). The Panel considered the extent to which the misconduct in this case can be and has been remediated by the Registrant and whether it is likely to be repeated.

4. The Panel concluded that the misconduct in the circumstances of this case is remediable. It considered that in order to fully remediate the Registrant would need to recognise that what he did was wrong and evidence insight to show that what occurred in relation to the breach of boundaries fell far below professional standards. The Panel considered it would need to see evidence to demonstrate that the Registrant has taken action to address his misconduct in a manner which remedies any past harm and avoids any future repetition.

5. The Panel placed weight on the Registrant’s response document which was provided by him in 2015. Within that response he described that he ‘recognised that providing accommodation while continuing to offer psychological treatment would have been a breach of professional boundaries, therefore the offer was contingent on an explicit recognition of the need to change role and cease to provide on-going professional services if it were to occur.’ The Registrant’s response further states that the ‘possibility of providing emergency accommodation to [M] and her children was discussed in monthly clinical supervision from January 2013 onwards, and I have continued to access monthly, case-specific supervision to the present time.’ In his reference AC states that the Registrant was having monthly supervision and that the Registrant did contact him to discuss his decision to help M escape, and subsequently informed him that having nowhere else to take M, he took her to his home.

6. The Registrant’s response document also states that during the course of his work with M, he identified relevant research and practice guidelines in relation to complex trauma / Dissociative Identity Disorder and he attended specialist workshops to consider disorganised / dysfunctional attachment patterns and their pervasive effects on relationships, including therapeutic alliances. He also attended a workshop on managing the secondary effects of working with violence against women and girls. The Panel noted that certificates of attendance at those courses were provided.

7. The Registrant’s response document states that he has ‘no intention of developing trauma-focused services as part of [his] future practice’. It also states that:
‘On receiving confirmation, via the Court, in February 2015 that an HCPC investigation was underway, I ceased taking any new Expert Witness commissions, in order to eliminate the possibility of adverse publicity from this investigation being used to undermine the credibility of my testimony in an unrelated matter. Similarly, pending the outcome of this investigation, I have declined to take on any new clinical work which has similarities with any key features of the present case.’

8. The Panel accepted from the information before it that the Registrant has developed partial insight in that he recognised that moving M to his home would have been in breach of professional boundaries. He also recognised that M’s case was complex and that he needed support with it which he sought from AC, the supervisor he identified once the complexities became apparent towards the end of 2012. The Panel did not consider the insight to be fully developed as the Registrant genuinely believes that he had no option other than to move M into his family home, but as the Panel has found, whatever the circumstances he should not have moved her in. The Registrant has not acknowledged the harm or potential harm that the transgression of boundaries, in his communications with her, hugging her, and moving her in to his home, had/ or may have had on M. It is clear from the evidence presented by Dr Taylor that the Registrant was traumatised by hearing about and becoming so aligned with M’s experiences of abuse. This “vicarious trauma” led the Registrant to be so wholly focussed on rescuing M that he could not recognise that he had done anything wrong.

9. In relation to the level of harm caused to M as a result of the misconduct, the Panel found, as with other aspects of this case, the answer was nuanced. Dr Thomas’ report states that M had received nearly four years of therapy from the Registrant and that ‘M is likely to have derived some considerable benefit from this treatment.’ Dr Thomas’ report refers to M’s comment to her in interview that ‘[Registrant A] has been the first therapist she has ever trusted and been able to disclose her historical abuse to as well as being her confidante in relation to the abuse by F2.’ However, Dr Thomas also states that ‘Although M has already had the benefit of over year therapeutic treatment with [Registrant A] and it is clear that this has benefitted her, it would be my view that due to the highly complicating factors of recent events (namely [Registrant A] moving from treating psychologist to taking her to live with him), I consider that M will require the full treatment length of 5 years in order to do the necessary therapeutic work to effect long-term change. If anything, due to her likely Quaternary dissociative disorder together with difficulty mourning the loss of [Registrant A] and trusting a new therapist, she is likely to require longer than this.’ The Panel therefore did find that the Registrant’s misconduct in breaching professional boundaries did cause M harm, albeit it was not ill-intended or malicious and that the actions taken ultimately protected her from the harm she was experiencing from F2.

10. In relation to actions taken by the Registrant to demonstrate remediation, the Panel took into account the modifications the Registrant has made to his practice since the events to which the Allegation relate. The Panel accepted that he had self-restricted his practice since the events, including not seeking to undertake trauma services as part of his practice, not undertaking expert witness work and not undertaking any new work with similarities to this case. The Panel noted that these steps taken by the Registrant showed reflection and the taking of those steps would accord with the sentiments expressed in the Registrant’s character testimonials where he is described as a reflective practitioner.

11. The Panel took into account that the Registrant has had a long career with no previous regulatory findings made against him. In the significant period of time that has passed since the events to which the Allegation relates (over ten years), the Registrant continued in his professional practice, until his retirement in 2021. During that time no further concerns have been raised about his willingness or capacity to observe his professional duties, including maintaining professional boundaries, and abide by the HCPC Standards.

12. Based on all the information before it, the Panel concluded that the Registrant’s actions in relation to the misconduct found, in this highly unusual set of circumstances, was behaviour that was unlikely to be repeated. The Panel therefore found no current impairment on the personal component.

13. The Panel next considered whether a finding of current impairment was necessary in the public interest. The Panel was mindful that the public interest encompassed not only public protection but also the declaring and upholding of proper standards of behaviour as well as the maintenance of public confidence in the profession. It took into account the guidance in the case of CHRE v NMC & Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin) at paragraph 74:- ‘In determining whether a practitioner’s fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct, the relevant panel should generally consider not only whether the practitioner continues to present a risk to members of the public in his or her current role, but also whether the need to uphold proper professional standards and public confidence in the profession would be undermined if a finding of impairment were not made in the particular circumstances.’

14. The Panel had regard to the factors identified by Dame Janet Smith in her 5th Shipman Report and cited in CHRE v (1) NMC and (2) Grant. The Panel considered whether:
a) The Registrant has in the past and/or is liable in the future to place service users at unwarranted risk of harm.
b) The Registrant has in the past brought and/or is liable in the future to bring the profession into disrepute.
c) The Registrant has in the past breached and/or is liable in the future to breach one of the fundamental tenets of the profession.

15. In relation to a), the Panel determined that the Registrant had placed M at unwarranted risk of harm, as detailed above. There was also a potential for harm as according to Mr Oldridge’s evidence, communicating with M using the language, as set in Schedule A, would have increased the likelihood of M’s personality splitting, rather than working toward integration and that this would have been detrimental to any attempt at increasing feelings of safety and security.

16. In relation to b), that is the question of whether the Registrant has in the past brought the profession into disrepute, the Panel determined he had. Notwithstanding the complexity of circumstances arising in the case, the Registrant breached professional boundaries with M, most fundamentally by moving her and the children into his family home. This is not acceptable and showed poor judgement. M was vulnerable and complex and required a significant level of intervention and support. In breaching the HCPC Standards the Registrant has brought the profession into disrepute.

17. The Panel then considered c), being whether the Registrant had breached fundamental tenets of the profession. The Panel noted its findings in relation to the misconduct, that the Registrant had, however well intended, failed to act in M’s best interests, and had failed to effectively communicate with her, such that a level of harm was caused to M. The Panel considered that it is essential to the effective delivery of professional services that the public can trust Psychologists to maintain clear boundaries and not allow these to be blurred however complex a case they are faced with. Clear boundaries are required to ensure effective and safe treatment for patients and service users. The Panel considered that in breaching professional boundaries, the Registrant did breach a fundamental tenet of the profession.

18. Whilst the Registrant is not likely to present a future risk to service users, he did engage in a course of misconduct which spanned two years and impacted on M’s therapeutic recovery. Whilst the Panel did not find any deliberate or malicious intent, nonetheless, as described above the Registrant demonstrated a breach of the fundamental tenets of the profession.

19. The Panel considered that members of the public, even if they knew that the Registrant had remained in competent practice, and had undergone a rigorous fitness to practise process, would be concerned if the Regulator were not to mark the seriousness of the Registrant’s misconduct with a finding of current impairment on public interest grounds. The Panel considered that not to make a finding of current impairment of fitness to practise in relation to the misconduct would seriously undermine public trust and confidence in the profession and would fail to uphold and declare proper standards.

20. The Panel therefore decided on the public interest element of impairment that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired.

The Registrar is directed to annotate the Register entry of Registrant A with a caution which is to remain on the Register for a period of 1 year from the date this Order comes into effect.

Right of Appeal
You may appeal to the High Court in England and Wales against the Panel’s decision and the order it has made against you.

Under Article 29(10) of the Health Professions Order 2001, any appeal must be made within 28 days of the date when this notice is served on you. The Panel’s order will not take effect until the appeal period has expired or, if you appeal, until that appeal is disposed of or withdrawn.

History of Hearings for Registrant A