December 2024: SE, Reference No 00598402, Registrant ID 43262
December 2024: Sharon Evans, Reference No 00598402, Registrant ID 43262
Allegations
In the allegations below, 鈥榯he Complainant鈥� refers to the witness 摆鈥.
1. The Member failed to be competent to deliver the services being offered to at least fundamental professional standards or better in contravention of paragraph 13 of the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2016, in that she:
a. on a day or days between 1 July Year 1 and 28 July Year 1, told the Complainant that the Complainant鈥檚 partner was 鈥榙efinitely somewhere on the spectrum鈥� or words to that effect when the Member was not qualified to diagnose an autism spectrum condition
b. on 1 July Year 1, knowing the Complainant had been 摆鈥, saw the Complainant and [..] partner together in a counselling session despite knowing that such a session is not recommended and despite feeling uncomfortable about holding a joint session 摆鈥.
2. The matters set out in the allegations numbered 1.a and 1.b above amounts to professional misconduct.
Preliminary issues
香港六合彩精准资料 application to withdraw allegation 1(b)
At the commencement of the hearing, the Association鈥檚 Counsel, 摆鈥, applied to offer no evidence in respect of allegation 1(b). 摆鈥The Association submitted that it was not in the public interest to obtain an expert report to counter the opinion expressed by 摆鈥 in his report dated 8 December Year 6 addressing the issue of whether the Member should have seen the Complainant and 摆鈥 partner together in a counselling session on 1 July Year 1.
The Member鈥檚 Counsel, 摆鈥, submitted that the burden rests with the 香港六合彩精准资料 to show that the Member knew that such a joint session was not recommended and that there was no evidence to establish this, or if there was such evidence then the opinion expressed by 摆鈥 as to a joint session being recommended in the circumstances could not be controverted and therefore that the only way to establish allegation 1(b) is for the Panel to instruct an independent expert.
The Panel carefully considered the Association鈥檚 application and decided to reject the application. The Panel did not consider it necessary to instruct an independent expert. The Panel will hear and consider all the evidence and decide allegation 1(b) based on all the evidence. The Panel considers allegation 1(b) to be serious and that it is in the interests of justice and fairness to both parties and in the public interest to retain such a serious allegation.
Member鈥檚 application of no case to answer
At the close of the Association鈥檚 case on 1 November Year 7, 摆鈥 made a submission of no case to answer in respect of allegations 1(a) and 1(b).
In respect of allegation 1(a), 摆鈥 submitted that the essential part of the allegation were the words 鈥樷��when the Member was not qualified to diagnose an autism spectrum Condition鈥�. He stated that there was no dispute that the Member was not a doctor, but that there was no evidence available to reach a conclusion that there was any diagnosis by the Member. Accordingly in his submission, the Panel, on any view, could not reach a conclusion that whatever was said as captured by the recording was a diagnosis.
In respect of allegation 1(b), 摆鈥 submitted that the Association had produced no evidence that holding a joint counselling session was not recommended. He stated that the Association had not established a duty, or that such a session was not recommended by, for example, a formal body or any other body. He further stated that the Expert report by 摆鈥 contained in the Member鈥檚 papers was not before the Panel and had not been sworn to by oath or affirmation. 摆鈥 submitted that the Association had not established its burden.
In respect of allegation 1(a), 摆鈥, submitted that the Complainant had interpreted what was said by the Member, that the recording captures the Member using the word 鈥榙efinitely鈥� on four occasions, and that the Member did identify the nature of autism by examination of symptoms either from the joint session held on 1 July Year 1 and/or from her own knowledge. He submitted that there was evidence for the allegation, the evidence was not weak and required an answer from the Member.
摆鈥 agreed with 摆鈥 submission that the Association had produced no evidence in relation to Allegation 1(b) that could establish the allegation.
The Panel carefully considered the Member鈥檚 application in respect of allegations 1(a) and 1(b).
In respect of allegation 1(b). the Panel accepted the submission of no case to answer. It found there was no evidence produced during or at the close of the Association鈥檚 case to establish the allegation.
In respect of allegation 1(a), the Panel rejected the submission of no case to answer. It found there is evidence that the word 鈥榙efinitely鈥� was used by the Member when referring to the Complainant鈥檚 partner and any possible medical condition he may have, and evidence that the Member used her knowledge of having met the Complainant鈥檚 partner to explore autism with the Complainant and offer her own views as to what might have caused the Complainant鈥檚 partner鈥檚 behaviour. The Panel decided that the recording, the transcript, and the Complainant鈥檚 statement, taken together, contains evidence that could establish this allegation.
听
The Panel, having decided that allegation 1(a) remains to be answered, used its power under Rule 4.12 to direct an amendment of the allegations. The Panel heard from both Counsel on this point prior to adjourning. It directed that Allegation 1(b) is deleted and Allegation 2 is amended to read:
鈥�2. The allegation set out in allegation 1a. amounts to professional misconduct.鈥�
Therefore, the allegations are amended to read:
1. The Member failed to be competent to deliver the services being offered to at least fundamental professional standards or better in contravention of paragraph 13 of the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2016 in that she:
a. on a day or days between 1 July Year 1 and 28 July Year 1, told the Complainant that the Complainant鈥檚 partner was 鈥榙efinitely somewhere on the spectrum鈥� or words to that effect when the Member was not qualified to diagnose an autism spectrum condition.
2. The allegation set out in allegation 1a. amounts to professional misconduct.
Attendance of Member鈥檚 witness 摆鈥
The Member鈥檚 witness, 摆鈥, was due to attend remotely from the 摆鈥. Both parties and the Panel (which had no questions for her) agreed that her evidence is of a character witness and that she was not required to attend. It was agreed that her witness statement, which is accompanied by a statement of truth, would be read into the proceedings.
Presence of 摆鈥 during hearing
摆鈥 requested that the expert witness 摆鈥 be allowed to observe the hearing and, following no objections from 摆鈥, the Panel allowed the application. 摆鈥 attended throughout days one and two of the hearing. Once Allegation 1(b) was deleted, he did not attend further.
Reasonable adjustments
摆鈥 applied for the Member to have her camera off while witness 摆鈥 was giving evidence. This was to allow 摆鈥 to give 摆鈥 best evidence to the Panel. The application was granted.
Late evidence application by Member
On day three of the hearing, when the Panel reconvened on 26 June Year 8,
摆鈥 applied for the admission of late evidence. This was comprised of sources to assist the Panel with the commonly understood meaning of the word 鈥榙iagnosis鈥�.
摆鈥 said that the interpretation of the word was a matter for the Panel, but he had no objections to the admission of this information.
摆鈥
The Panel decided that it was in the interests of justice to allow the application and admit the information into evidence.
Late evidence application by Association
After lunch on 26 June Year 8, 摆鈥 applied to admit late evidence in the form of a single screenshot of an NHS website page entitled 鈥榟ow to get diagnosed as autistic鈥�. He submitted this was in response to the Member鈥檚 refusal ,when questioned, to accept that autism can be diagnosed as she considers it to be a developmental condition not a medical condition. 摆鈥 made no objection to this application.
The Panel took, and accepted, advice from the Clerk and decided in the interests of justice to allow the application.
Admissions
The Member accepted that she was not a qualified doctor but made no admissions to the allegations.
Evidence before Panel
In coming to its decision, the Panel carefully considered the following:
鈥� The 香港六合彩精准资料鈥檚 bundle of evidence and exhibits including a digital voice recording and transcript of that recording.
鈥� The Member鈥檚 bundle of evidence and exhibits.
鈥� The written evidence and submissions of the original complainant 摆鈥 and the 香港六合彩精准资料.
鈥� The written evidence and submissions by and on behalf of the Member.
鈥� The Panel heard oral evidence from witness 摆鈥 and the Member.
鈥� The transcript of proceedings on 31 October-1 November Year 7 was provided to the Panel to prepare for its reconvening and during deliberations.
鈥� The 香港六合彩精准资料 Professional Conduct Procedure 2018.
鈥� The Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2016.
Decision and Reasons for Findings
On balance, having fully considered the above, the Panel made the following findings:
The Panel noted and took into consideration the Member鈥檚 good character in deciding on the credibility and reliability of her evidence. Nevertheless, the Panel agreed that she was in their view, at times, evasive when questioned directly by the Panel, which was also relevant to her credibility.
The Chair re-confirmed with each panel member that they had relistened to the recording of the therapy session.
The Clerk provided the Panel with the Oxford English dictionary meaning of the word 鈥榙iagnosis鈥�:
a. Medicine. Determination of the nature of a diseased condition; identification of a disease by careful investigation of its symptoms and history; also, the opinion (formally stated) resulting from such investigation.
It also took into account the information about the meaning of diagnosis provided by the parties, including the following proposed definitions:
鈥�the making of a judgment about the exact character of a disease or other problem鈥�
鈥榯he identification of the nature of an illness or other problem by examination of the symptoms.鈥�
Allegation 1 - PROVED
Allegation 1(a)
Having listened to the recording of the therapy session and reviewed the transcript, the Panel found:
1. The Member, referring to 摆鈥 partner, said:
a. 鈥�He鈥檚 definitely got something more than a normal problem鈥� (p.62 Association bundle).
b. in response to 摆鈥 raising the possibility of autism, 鈥榖ut certainly I would have thought he fell into that category, because with autism, there鈥檚 a big, whole spectrum鈥� (p.62 Association bundle).
c. 鈥�they don鈥檛 have to have every single trait, they can have some traits on the length of the full spectrum, you know. They can have sometimes鈥� he strikes me as definitely in that category鈥� (p.63 Association bundle).
d. 鈥楩rom what you said, from the way he was, yes definitely鈥� (p.63 Association bundle).
e. in response to 摆鈥 describing 摆鈥 partner鈥檚 behaviour, 鈥�And that鈥檚 very autistic, because they have to learn absolutely everything鈥� (p.63 Association bundle).
f. in response to 摆鈥 suggesting it might be shyness, 鈥�No, it鈥檚 not shyness, no, because with autism, they have to be taught everything,鈥� (p.63 Association bundle).
g. 鈥業 think he definitely needs to be assessed by someone in clinical psychology鈥� (p.67 Association bundle).
h. in response to 摆鈥 saying he鈥檚 a 摆鈥, 鈥楬e鈥檚鈥� that鈥檚 where a lot of autistic or Asperger鈥檚 syndrome people go鈥� (p.67 Association bundle).
i. in response to 摆鈥 asking if it could be autism, 鈥�It sounds like to me, more like autism, yeah鈥� (p.68 Association bundle).
j. in discussion about what counselling support the partner is getting, 鈥業 just hope they recognise that there is a sort or slight deficit there鈥� (p.74 Association bundle).
k. in response to 摆鈥 describing 摆鈥 partner鈥檚 behaviour, 鈥�I mean that is just so much autistic trait鈥� (p.75 Association bundle).
2. The Panel noted 摆鈥 told the Member around five minutes into the session that she had got 鈥�into the mindset鈥� where she thought she caused 摆鈥 partner to 摆鈥. Despite this disclosure, the Member focused on investigating the partner not 摆鈥 state of mind.
3. Throughout the session, the Member was focused on 摆鈥 partner, not 摆鈥 as her client. She repeatedly associated the partner鈥檚 behaviours that she had observed and those described by 摆鈥 with autism and how autistic people behave. This was evidenced by the fact that the first time the Member mentioned 摆鈥 protecting herself was around 50 minutes into the session.
The Panel concluded that the passage of conversation bounded by the comments quoted at (b) and (c) above amounted to the Member saying words to the effect of 鈥榙efinitely somewhere on the spectrum鈥� in relation to 摆鈥 partner.
The Panel found that the Member was acting in a professional role and expressed personal knowledge and experience of 摆鈥, which added credibility and weight to her statements. This was evidenced by 摆鈥 evidence. When asked whether 摆鈥 was more or less confident that 摆鈥 partner was autistic following the Member鈥檚 comments, 摆鈥 responded, 鈥榊es, because she was a counsellor and, you know 鈥� she wasn鈥檛 involved鈥� she felt better, she was better qualified, it was a, a therapist, a person in a responsible position.鈥�
The Panel concluded that the Member had provided her opinion that 摆鈥 partner was autistic based on her own observed and 摆鈥 reports of his behaviour. It accepted this would not constitute a formal diagnosis, in common terms, if it was during a chat between friends. However, it concluded that these comments were made in the context of a professional therapy session where the Member was in a position of power and influence as the counsellor in the room and had set out her knowledge and experience of autism. Given the level of certainty communicated by the Member鈥檚 choice of language, and the tone and manner with which she expressed this, the Panel found that the comments at 1(b) and 1(c) above, in the context of the cumulative effect of her comments during the session, amounted objectively to a diagnosis in common terms. The Panel accepted the Member鈥檚 evidence that she did not think she told 摆鈥 she was only giving her opinion and not a diagnosis.
The Panel found, on the Member鈥檚 evidence, that she had no specialist training or qualifications that made her qualified to diagnose an autistic spectrum condition.
The Panel concluded, from 摆鈥 evidence, that the effect of the Member鈥檚 comments was to make her 鈥�dramatically more confident鈥� 摆鈥 partner was autistic, and this contributed to 摆鈥 delaying 摆鈥.
The Panel then applied these findings to the stem of allegation 1 and paragraph 13 of the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2016.
The Panel found it was not disputed that the Member was providing therapeutic services to 摆鈥 who had experienced 摆鈥. 摆鈥wanted to understand what had happened. The 摆鈥, and the Member was aware 摆鈥 was involved. The Panel found the Member misdirected the session at an early stage when she chose to investigate the partner and not to focus on 摆鈥 and ensure 摆鈥 safety. As a result, the Member gave a diagnosis that appeared to reduce the partner鈥檚 personal responsibility for the 摆鈥, only touched on 摆鈥 safety peripherally towards the end of the session and had the effect of delaying 摆鈥.
The Panel concluded that this amounted to a failure to deliver the services she had agreed to provide to 摆鈥 to fundamental professional standards.
The Panel found that allegation 1(a) was proved.
Allegation 2 - PROVED
The Panel went on to consider whether the Member's actions that it had found proved in relation to Allegation 1 amounted to Professional Misconduct, as defined by the 香港六合彩精准资料 Professional Conduct Procedure 2018 which states:
鈥�professional misconduct means a failure to meet professional standards that is of sufficient seriousness that a period of suspension of membership or withdrawal of membership of the Association may be warranted鈥�.
The Panel also noted the guidance in the 香港六合彩精准资料 Protocol 14: Guidance on Sanctions, which sets out the following criteria that may result in a decision that suspension or withdrawal of membership is appropriate:
1. Where the Member has knowingly and deliberately behaved in a way to cause harm to the Complainant or other members of the public;
2. Where the Member has been dishonest or lacked integrity;
3. Where the complaint involves sexual misconduct;
4. Where the Member has shown a blatant disregard for professional standards;
5. Where the Member has abused their position or another鈥檚 trust;
6. Where the harm to the Complainant is particularly severe;
7. Where the Member has shown a complete lack of insight into, or remorse for, their behaviour; and
8. Any other factors the Decision Maker considers warrant withdrawal of membership.
The Panel concluded that the Member had abused her position of trust and shown a lack of insight into or remorse for her actions. It also found that the Member鈥檚 conduct would be considered deplorable by her fellow counsellors.
The Panel therefore concluded that Allegation 1 amounted to Professional Misconduct as defined in the 香港六合彩精准资料 Professional Conduct Procedure 2018.
Decision
The Panel was unanimous in its decision that the Member had failed to comply with the Professional Standards in a way that amounted to Professional Misconduct, specifically that the Member had acted contrary to paragraph 13 of the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2016.
Sanction
The Panel reconvened on 24 August Year 8 to consider what, if any, sanction was appropriate in this case. It reminded itself of its findings above. It also considered the guidance within 香港六合彩精准资料 Protocol on Sanctions (PR14) and reminded itself of its powers of sanction under Article 5.12 of the 香港六合彩精准资料 Professional Conduct Procedure 2018.
The Panel reviewed and took into consideration the submissions on sanction from 摆鈥. It concluded that the Member was still not demonstrating insight into her failings or the impact of her conduct on the Complainant and the reputations of the 香港六合彩精准资料 and the counselling professions.
The Panel considered whether a letter of apology to 摆鈥 was appropriate and proportionate. It concluded from 摆鈥 evidence and 摆鈥 request for an
adjustment during the hearing so 摆鈥 did not have to see the Member that any further contact between 摆鈥 and the Member, particularly if instigated by the Member, could be harmful. The Panel therefore discounted this sanction.
The Panel did, however, conclude that it was appropriate and proportionate to require the Member to demonstrate specific change/improvement in practice and to undertake specific training. It also concluded this would be adequate to ensure public protection and the maintenance of the reputations of the 香港六合彩精准资料 and counselling professions. It therefore dispensed with consideration of a period of suspension or withdrawal of membership.
The Panel requires the Member to, within 8 weeks of the date of this letter, provide the 香港六合彩精准资料 with:
1. evidence of successful completion of no less than 12 hours continuous professional development1 (CPD) addressing the impact of personal disclosure by a counsellor and bringing their personal perspective/beliefs into the therapeutic relationship, including but not limited to the context of clients 摆鈥.
2. a personal statement demonstrating specific changes/improvements in the Member鈥檚 practice that;
(i) reflects on what went wrong with the Complainant and shows acceptance of responsibility for what the Panel found went wrong;
(ii) demonstrates a deep understanding of the harm that can be caused by personal disclosure by a counsellor and bringing their personal perspective/beliefs into the therapeutic relationship;
(iii) details what she has learned and what she has changed to prevent repetition of what went wrong.
3. Confirmation that the Member has discussed her CPD and personal statement with her supervisor.
1 The 香港六合彩精准资料 Registrar defines CPD as:
鈥楢ny learning experience that can be used for the systematic maintenance, improvement and broadening of competence, knowledge and skills to ensure that the practitioner has the capacity to practise safely, effectively and legally within their evolving scope of practice. It may include both personal and professional development鈥�.
(Where ellipses [ . . . ] are displayed, they indicate an omission of text)