n the recent case of Haddon v UKCP, the claimant challenged the decision to remove him from the register. The claimant had engaged in a sexual relationship with Client A, 10 days after their final session (para 14).

The claimant broadly accepted that his conduct was sexually motivated but denied several allegations including that the hug he had given during his final session had been sexually motivated or unprofessional. All allegations were found proved (52), misconduct/impairment established, and the claimant’s registration was terminated. The appeal panel found there had been ‘errors’ but they had no impact on the finding of misconduct (66). Due to the contractual relationship with the regulator, the challenge was by claim for breach of contract [para 69]

Whether the ‘hug’ was sexually motivated.

The Court concluded:

“…it was rational and open to the Adjudication Panel to reach the conclusions that the hug was sexually motivated… A hug can have different motivations and different significance in different contexts – sometimes a hug may be a prelude to a sexual relationship (‘opening the door’ as the Adjudication Panel put it); and sometimes a hug may have no such connotations or motivation (87).

 “…there is no clear dividing line between the two categories of sexual motivation identified in Basson…’pursuit of a future sexual relationship’ is, very often, indistinguishable from ‘pursuit of sexual gratification’. The reason why a future sexual relationship is pursued is, very often, because it is hoped that the sexual element of that relationship will provide sexual gratification” (93).

Findings of insight, remediation and risk of repetition.

The court concluded:

 “…[the] treatment of the evidence of insight, remediation and risk of repetition was in breach of the implied terms. In Wednesbury terms, the Adjudication Panel failed to have regard to material evidence, failed to act fairly, and made irrational findings which were unsupported by the evidence… the way I would prefer to put it, is that the Adjudication Panel did not act judicially…” (104).

 “…the Claimant [sought] to mitigate his admitted failures and lack of judgment. He did that…[by] referring to factors that may have impacted on his judgment….It is very common that someone, admitting wrongdoing, will seek to mitigate their wrongdoing. A judicial body…should be careful to distinguish between mitigation and denial…On the contrary, they treated statements of mitigation as… denial or blame…”[107].

Sanction

”…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” [117].

The Court remitted the matter back to a ‘new Adjudication panel’.

Have you been notified about a referral to your regulator or a regulatory hearing? Get in Touch with me Today for Specialist, Affordable Advice.