July 2024: LM, Reference No 00588762, Registrant ID 31921
July 2024: Liam McAlorum, Reference No 00588762, Registrant ID 31921
Preliminary issues
1. Application on behalf of the Member for the admission of late evidence.
At the commencement of the hearing °Ú…] made an application on behalf of the Member for the admission of late evidence. The application was unopposed by °Ú…] on behalf of the Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê¾«×¼×ÊÁÏ. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Clerk on the Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê¾«×¼×ÊÁÏ’s Protocol 4.
The Panel’s decision was that its overarching objective for the hearing was to ensure that the Member had every opportunity to be heard and that it would, therefore, accept the late evidence of°Ú…]
°Ú…]
2. Request by the Panel to see correspondence between the Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê¾«×¼×ÊÁÏ and the Member
In her opening for the Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê¾«×¼×ÊÁÏ °Ú…] referred to correspondence between the Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê¾«×¼×ÊÁÏ and the Member before this hearing in which the Member had made some admissions. The correspondence was not before the Panel. Neither party objected to the disclosure of the correspondence.
°Ú…]
3. Amendment of Allegation 1.1
During the first day of the hearing the Panel was concerned that Allegation 1.1 as drafted did not sufficiently reflect either the Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê¾«×¼×ÊÁÏ’s case or the Member’s evidence. Before the end of the first day of the hearing the Panel raised its concern with the parties.
At the commencement of the second day of the hearing the Panel informed the parties of its proposal to amend Allegation 1.1. Neither party opposed the proposed amendment.
The Panel heard and accepted legal advice from the Clerk on its powers pursuant to paragraph 4.12 of the Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê¾«×¼×ÊÁÏ’s Professional Conduct Procedure.
The decision of the Panel was that it would amend Allegation 1.1 so that it read:
1.1 The Member made inappropriate comments regarding politics, Covid19 and the vaccination to a young person in one or more counselling sessions.
Allegations as amended
Ìý
Allegation 1
1.1 The Member made inappropriate comments regarding politics, Covid19 and the vaccination to a young person in one or more counselling sessions.
1.2 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with the following paragraphs of ‘Good Practice’ in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018:7 (We will make each client the primary focus of our attention and our work during our sessions together) and/or 27 (Careful consideration will be given to working with children and young people that: b) demonstrates knowledge and skills about ways of working that are appropriate to the young person’s development and how relationships are formed) and/or 48 (We will avoid any actions that will bring our profession into disrepute)
Allegation 1.1 amounts to professional misconduct as defined in the Professional Conduct Procedure.
Allegation 2
2.1 The Member continued to practise as a counsellor when he was psychologically unfit to do so.
2.2 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with the following paragraphs of ‘Good Practice’ in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018: 18 (We will maintain our own physical and psychological health at a level that enables us to work effectively with our clients) and/or 91 (We will take responsibility for our own wellbeing as essential to sustaining good practice with our clients by: b) monitoring and maintaining our own psychological and physical health, particularly that we are sufficiently resilient and resourceful to undertake our work in ways that satisfy professional standards; c) seeking professional support and services as the need arises; d) keeping a healthy balance between our work and other aspects of life.)
Allegation 3
3.1 The Member failed to notify Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê¾«×¼×ÊÁÏ of the disciplinary proceedings brought against him.
3.2 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with the following paragraph of ‘Good Practice’ in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018: 47 (We will promptly notify this Association about any criminal charges or disciplinary procedures brought against us.)
Documents and evidence before the Panel
In coming to its decision the Panel carefully considered the following:
• The Association’s Case Papers
• The Member’s Case Papers
• The Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê¾«×¼×ÊÁÏ Professional Conduct Procedure 2018
• The Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018
• The Member’s additional documents
• Correspondence between the parties before this hearing
In coming to its decision the Panel carefully considered the following:
• The allegations made
• The written evidence
• The oral evidence of the Member
• What weight to attach to each piece of evidence
• Whether the allegations should be upheld
Background and summary of Evidence
1. Liam McAlorum, the Member, was employed by °Ú…], a provider of counselling in °Ú…].
2. On 10 November Year 1 °Ú…] wrote to the Association informing them of its termination of the Member's employment following a disciplinary procedure after they received a complaint by a young person and their parent. Following the complaint raised, the Member apologised to the young person. The Association made the decision, under Paragraph 1.5 of the Professional Conduct Procedure, to adopt the complaint.
3. The Member underwent a disciplinary procedure with °Ú…]. The Member had an internal disciplinary hearing on 7 October Year 1. The disciplinary hearing was to discuss the Member making inappropriate and unethical comments to a young person regarding Coronavirus, the vaccination and politics during two counselling sessions on 12 and 19 May Year 1. During the hearing, it was alleged that the Member:
a) Said that the news is full of lies and we should not believe what we are being told
b) Said that covid was a government experiment to see how we would react
c) Said that he °Ú…] coronavirus
d) Showed a website to the young person detailing the side effects of the AstraZeneca vaccine, including strokes and death
e) Said that world leaders, including Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Donald Trump were evil
f) Said that Obama had blown up the Middle East
g) Said that the Illuminati run the world and caused covid
4. In the hearing, the Member read a statement of his experience and thoughts arising from the complaint, including the impact on his mental health.
5. The outcome of the disciplinary hearing was that the Member should be dismissed.
6. The Member appealed the outcome as he considered that there was not a strong enough case made by °Ú…] to justify his dismissal. The Member stated his reasoning for the appeal, including that he had apologised, that he has not denied making the statements, that he did not engage in lengthy discussions on a range of topics over two sessions and that he was not offered training and support to help manage these very difficult conversations with young people.
7. The appeal was held on 16 November Year 1. During the appeal the Member stated that the comments were made in one ill-judged moment and commented that he would learn from his mistake. The appeal was dismissed.
The hearing
°Ú…] presented the case on behalf of the Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê¾«×¼×ÊÁÏ.
The sole document in the Association’s papers was the letter dated 10 November Year 1 from °Ú…] referring the Member to the Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê¾«×¼×ÊÁÏ.
The remainder of the papers in the case were provided by the Member and consisted of:
• letter from the Member to the Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê¾«×¼×ÊÁÏ dated 16 February Year 2
• typed note of disciplinary hearing on 7 October Year 1
• outcome of disciplinary hearing letter to the Member dated 25 October Year 1
• the Member’s Grounds for Appeal against the outcome of the disciplinary hearing
• typed note of disciplinary appeal hearing on 16 November Year 1
• appeal hearing letter to the Member dated 19 November Year 1
• single page typed letter from the Member to °Ú…] re questions raised in appeal hearing letter
• outcome of appeal hearing letter to the Member dated 3 December Year 1
• letter from the Member to the Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê¾«×¼×ÊÁÏ dated 15 February Year 2
• letter from the Member to the Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê¾«×¼×ÊÁÏ dated 25 April Year 2 with supporting documents
Decisions and Reasons for Findings
The Panel received and accepted advice from its Clerk who advised them to disregard any opinions or findings within the papers or any reference to any criticism of the Member that does not form part of an allegation; that its role was to determine the allegations before it.
Having fully considered all the evidence in the case the Panel made the following findings, bearing in mind throughout its deliberations that the burden was on the Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê¾«×¼×ÊÁÏ to prove each allegation on the balance of probabilities.
Allegation 1.1 The Member made inappropriate comments regarding politics, Covid19 and the vaccination to a young person in one or more counselling sessions.
Found proved on the balance of probabilities and in the particulars set out below.
The allegation as amended was accepted by the Member during the hearing.
The Member further accepted during the hearing that in a counselling session on 19 May Year 1 the particulars set out in °Ú…]’ letter to him dated 5 April Year 3 took place, i.e. that he:
• Said that the news is full of lies and we should not believe what we are being told
• Said that covid was a government experiment to see how we would react
• Said that he °Ú…] coronavirus
• Showed a website to the young person detailing the side effects of the AstraZeneca vaccine, including strokes and death
• Said that world leaders, including Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Donald Trump were evil
• Said that Obama had blown up the Middle East
• Said that the Illuminati run the world and caused covid
The Panel considered the Member’s admissions to be unambiguous and accepted them.
Allegation 2.1 The Member continued to practise as a counsellor when he was psychologically unfit to do so.
Found not proved on the balance of probabilities.
The Panel took into account both the typed record of the Member reading out a document during the disciplinary hearing on 7 October Year 1 and the oral evidence he gave during the hearing. The Member described events that happen during a lifetime that happened to him during the COVID-19 pandemic and the well-being regime he had in place to support his personal and professional life during the pandemic. The decision of the Panel is that, although life events and the pandemic each had an impact on the Member’s wellbeing, this impact was not such so as to make him psychologically unfit to practise as a counsellor.
Allegation 3. 1 The Member failed to notify Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê¾«×¼×ÊÁÏ of the disciplinary proceedings brought against him.
Found proved on the balance of probabilities
The earliest record before the Panel of the Member contacting the Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê¾«×¼×ÊÁÏ is correspondence from the Member to the Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê¾«×¼×ÊÁÏ in February Year 2.
The allegation was accepted by the Member during the hearing and is made out on the documents before the Panel as set out in the chronology below:
• failed to inform the Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê¾«×¼×ÊÁÏ after the disciplinary hearing on 7 October Year 1
• failed to inform the Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê¾«×¼×ÊÁÏ after the disciplinary hearing outcome letter of 25 October Year 1
• failed to inform the Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê¾«×¼×ÊÁÏ after the appeal hearing on 16 November Year 1,
• failed to inform the Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê¾«×¼×ÊÁÏ after the appeal hearing outcome letter of 3 December Year 1
In addition, the Panel notes that in its letter to him dated 25 October Year 1 °Ú…] stated:
‘Please note that the circumstances of your dismissal will need to be reported to Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê¾«×¼×ÊÁÏ. I will be making that report and suggest you make direct contact with Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê¾«×¼×ÊÁÏ to make inquiries about the impact of your dismissal on your registration with them.’
The Member failed to follow the suggestion made by °Ú…].
Allegation 1.2
The Panel determined that in saying what he said and behaving in the way he did the Member was expressing his own opinion without taking into consideration his position of power and responsibility as the young person’s counsellor. The Panel determines, therefore, that the Member breached the following paragraphs of ‘Good Practice’ in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018:
7: We will make each client the primary focus of our attention and our work during our sessions together, and
27: Careful consideration will be given to working with children and young people that: b) demonstrates knowledge and skills about ways of working that are appropriate to the young person’s development and how relationships are formed, and
48: We will avoid any actions that will bring our profession into disrepute.
Allegation 2.2
As the Panel found allegation 2.1 not proved, it did not have to go on the consider allegation 2.2.
Allegation 3.2
The Panel determined that, by failing to promptly inform the Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê¾«×¼×ÊÁÏ in the matter set out under Allegation 2.1, the Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with the following paragraph of ‘Good Practice’ in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018:
47: We will promptly notify this Association about any criminal charges or disciplinary procedures brought against us.
Professional Misconduct
The Panel reminded itself of the definition of Professional Misconduct in the Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê¾«×¼×ÊÁÏ Professional Conduct Procedure 2018:
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.
The view of the Panel is that in saying what he said and behaving in the way he did over a length of time estimated by him in oral evidence to be 10 to 15 minutes of one counselling session the Member’s failure to meet the standards expected of him when counselling a young person was sufficiently serious to be described as egregious.
The decision of the Panel is that allegation 1.1 amounts to professional misconduct.
Decision
The decision of the Panel is that:
• there had been a failure to comply with the Professional Standards with regard to Allegation 3.1 in that that there had been a breach of paragraph 47 of ‘Good Practice’ in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018, and
• there had been a failure to comply with the Professional Standards that amounted to Professional Misconduct as defined in the Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê¾«×¼×ÊÁÏ Professional Conduct Procedure 2018 but only in respect of Allegation 1.1. Specifically that the Member had acted contrary to paragraphs 7, 27 and 48 of ‘Good Practice’ in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018.
Sanction
The Panel reconvened on 3 November Year 3 as the Sanction Panel to decide what, if any, sanction was appropriate.
The Panel reminded itself of the allegations found proved, the breaches of the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018, the finding of Professional Misconduct as defined in the Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê¾«×¼×ÊÁÏ Professional Conduct Procedure, the sanctions available to it under the Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê¾«×¼×ÊÁÏ Sanctions Protocol 14 and Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê¾«×¼×ÊÁÏ’s Indicative Sanctions Guidance.
The Panel took into account a 6 page typed document submitted on behalf of the Member dated 30 August Year 3.
The Panel considered the allegations found proved to be serious, one of them amounting to Professional Misconduct as defined in the Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê¾«×¼×ÊÁÏ Professional Conduct Procedure. The Panel, however, bore in mind the Member’s engagement throughout the process after his referral to Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê¾«×¼×ÊÁÏ, his admission to the matters found proved and that he has no previous regulatory history and concluded that his conduct was not incompatible with membership of Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê¾«×¼×ÊÁÏ.
The decision of the Panel was to impose the following sanction:
1. To undertake a minimum of 12 hours Continuing Professional Development on maintaining professional boundaries within counselling relationships with a particular focus on:
• the power imbalance in counselling relationships, whether with children, young people or adults, and
• the importance of self-awareness by counsellors
and to provide to Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê¾«×¼×ÊÁÏ evidence of successful completion of this training and identify what resources were used.
2. To provide to Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê¾«×¼×ÊÁÏ evidence of successful completion of CPD training in ‘Preventing compassion, fatigue, vicarious trauma and burnout’ undertaken on 12 September Year 2 including identifying what resources were used.
3. After completing the training identified in point 1 above, to write a reflective statement, and to provide it to Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê¾«×¼×ÊÁÏ within 12 weeks from the date of this letter, setting out:
• what he has learned about boundaries from this case, particularly in recognising the power imbalance in counselling relationships and the importance of self-awareness of the counsellor in counselling relationships
• demonstrating, with examples, how he has changed his practice encompassing his understanding of the importance of recognising the power imbalance in counselling relationships and how he practices self-awareness
• demonstrating how he intends to monitor the change in his practice
• the impact on the young person he was counselling of his failure to recognise the power in balance in their relationship
• the impact of his conduct in damaging the reputation of Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê¾«×¼×ÊÁÏ and the wider counselling professions
4. Provide evidence that his learning and reflection have been discussed with his supervisor.
(Where ellipses [ . . . ] are displayed, they indicate an omission of text)
Ìý