October 2024: JH, Reference No. 00801246, Registrant ID 340640
OCTOBER 2024: Jade Hens, Reference No 00801246, Registrant ID 340640
Preliminary issues
- Admissions made by the Member
At the commencement of the hearing, at the request of the Chair of the Panel, the Member made admissions to the following Allegations:
1.1: that she used the word in question but that she could not remember exactly what other words she used
1.2 i
1.3 in its entirety
2.1
2.2
2.3
The Panel took note of the Member’s admissions but retained jurisdiction to make its own determination in relation to all of the Allegations.
- Application on behalf of Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê¾«×¼×ÊÁÏ to amend Allegation 1.1
At the commencement of the hearing °Ú…], the Case Presenter for Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê¾«×¼×ÊÁÏ, indicated that, after having heard the oral evidence of the Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê¾«×¼×ÊÁÏ’s witness, he may make an application to amend Allegation 1.1. At the beginning of the second day of the hearing °Ú…] made such an application pursuant to Paragraph 4.12 of Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê¾«×¼×ÊÁÏ’s Professional Conduct Procedure.
°Ú…]
Ms Hens did not oppose the application.
The Panel took and accepted legal advice from its Clerk. The decision of the Panel was to allow the amendment sought as it better reflected the oral evidence of Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê¾«×¼×ÊÁÏ’s witness and the admission made by Ms Hens.
The Panel made an additional amendment to remove the second time the word ‘³Ù³ó±ð’ was used in Allegation 1.1 to correct a typographical error; this was unopposed by either party.
- Referring to a particular word in Allegations 1.1 and 1.2 during the hearing
It was accepted by all those participating in the hearing that the word commencing with the letter N in Allegations 1.1 and 1.2 is deeply offensive. The allegations were read out in full by the Clerk at the commencement of the hearing, as was required. °Ú…] was not in attendance when this occurred. The Chair agreed with the proposal made to her by the parties that, thereafter throughout the hearing, the word in question would be referred to as ‘the N word’
Allegations as amended
Allegation 1Ìý
1.1 On or around 10 November Year 1, during a one-to-one meeting with her manager, °Ú…], theÌýMember said to °Ú…]: Ìý
‘If a student used the word n°Ú…]er in a session, the counsellor should not reflect n°Ú…]er backÌýto them’,Ìýor words to that effect
1.2Ìý The Member’s use of the word ‘n°Ú…]er’ was:
iÌý inappropriate and/or
iiÌý amounted to racial harassment in that:
- the conduct was unwanted by °Ú…] and
- the conduct related to °Ú…] race; and Ìý
- the conduct had the purpose or effect of either violating °Ú…] dignity, or creating anÌýintimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for °Ú…]
1.3Ìý The MemberÌýthereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way whichÌýwas inconsistent with the following paragraph of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in theÌýCounselling Professions 2018: Ìý
- We will take the law concerning equality, diversity and inclusion into careful consideration and strive for a higher standard than the legal minimum.ÌýÌý
- We will avoid any actions that will bring our profession into disrepute.ÌýÌý
- Practitioners will treat colleagues fairly and foster their capability and equality of opportunity.ÌýÌý
1.4 Allegations 1.1-1.3 are Professional Misconduct as defined in the Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê¾«×¼×ÊÁÏ Professional ConductÌýProcedure 2018. Ìý
Ìý
Allegation 2 Ìý
2.1 On 1 March Year 3, the Member was notified in writing that it had been decided that theÌýcomplaint against her would proceed to disciplinary action and that it had been considered by aÌýUniversity Disciplinary Panel. Ìý
2.2 The Member did not promptly notify the Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê¾«×¼×ÊÁÏ of these disciplinary procedures against her. Ìý
2.3 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by actingÌýin a way which was inconsistent with the following paragraph of the Ethical Framework for GoodÌýPractice in the Counselling Professions 2018: Ìý
- We will promptly notify this Association about any criminal charges or disciplinary procedures brought against us. We will also notify this Association of civil claims arising from work in the counselling professions, or if we have been declared bankrupt.ÌýÌý
2.4 Allegations 2.1-2.3 are not Professional Misconduct as defined in the Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê¾«×¼×ÊÁÏ ProfessionalÌýConduct Procedure 2018.
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
and took into account the following:
- The allegations made
- The written evidence
- The oral evidence
- What weight to attach to the evidence
- Whether the allegations should be upheld
Background and Summary of Evidence
The Association submits this complaint under paragraph 1.5 of the Professional Conduct Procedure (PCP), it being the opinion of the Registrar that the alleged conduct of Jade Hens (the Member) is such that it would be in the public interest for the conduct of the Member to form the basis of a complaint pursuant to the PCP.
Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê¾«×¼×ÊÁÏ received information on 21 December Year 3 from °Ú…] (°Ú…]) alleging racial harassment towards her by the Member.
At the time of making her complaint °Ú…] was °Ú…] at °Ú…] and the Member was Counselling Clinical Lead at °Ú…]
In her complaint [...] set out that during a one to one meeting with the Member on 10 November Year 2 they were discussing issues arising if °Ú…] was to employ student counsellors who did not have clinical experience. °Ú…] states that the Member said she would give an ‘extreme example’ of a lack of common sense a student without clinical experience may have when reflecting back what had been said by their client. °Ú…] details the example as ‘If a student used the word n°Ú…]er in a session, the counsellor should not reflect the n°Ú…]er back to them.’ °Ú…] said she interrupted and said that she was not comfortable with that word, that the Member is a °Ú…] member of staff and that she is her °Ú…]. °Ú…] states the Member went on to give a further example which featured the word ‘sh[.]t’.Ìý
°Ú…] describes how she found the Member’s use of the word used in her first example to be incredibly upsetting and insensitive and could not see any rationale for the Member choosing such an offensive and racist term to demonstrate a completely hypothetical situation but wanted to finish the meeting calmly and reflect on what had just happened.
The next day °Ú…] sent an email to the Member stating
‘Hello Jade, I think it would be prudent to discuss the racial terminology used yesterday. I can see you’re free at 4.30pm so we can discuss then. Thanks, °Ú…]’
°Ú…] found the Member’s response to be deeply concerning, especially for a member of staff working in an institution where approximately half of the students are People of Colour and within a role which requires high trust relationships with vulnerable, complex clients.
‘Hello, that’s fine, no problem at all. I thought I was quite clear in why I used that example (and did mention it as an extreme example of what could come up) and does not reflect any discriminatory opinions or feelings i (sic) have against different races to my own. I am not a racist person in the slightest and hope you believe that. As I said yesterday, apologies if I caused any offence- that absolutely was not the intention.’
°Ú…] gave context to her complaint, particularly that the Member had applied for the role she was in but had not been shortlisted, that she worked hard to ensure that a fixed term counsellor was made permanent and additional space made available for counselling appointments for students.
°Ú…] says the Member had no respect for her as a manager or a °Ú…] person and that the Member intentionally racially harassed her due to her (the Member’s) personal dislike of her.
°Ú…] provided details of the harm caused to her by the Member.
As a result of a formal complaint made by °Ú…] about the Member, a process was undertaken by °Ú…]. The Member did not promptly inform Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê¾«×¼×ÊÁÏ of this process.
The hearing
°Ú…] presented the case on behalf of Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê¾«×¼×ÊÁÏ, relying upon Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê¾«×¼×ÊÁÏ’s case papers, which consisted of the referral to Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê¾«×¼×ÊÁÏ made by °Ú…] and a witness statement from °Ú…] dated 13 December Year 3, together with the oral evidence of °Ú…].
°Ú…] adopted her witness statement but clarified that, of the words she attributes to the Member in her referral, the second time the word ‘³Ù³ó±ð’ is included in speech marks is an error.
The core parts of °Ú…] evidence under affirmation, including responding to questions put to her by the Member were:
- the one to one discussion with the Member was about employing counsellors with no clinical experience
- the examples given by the Member of possible concerns arising from employing counsellors with no clinical experience were random examples, not based on real cases
- she interrupted the Member after the Member had given the first example that included the N word
- the first example given by the Member seemed more than coincidental
- there was no need to use the N word; it’s a common word in the English language and everyone knows what it relates to
- the Member’s response to her in her email was dismissive
- the Member’s email did not include any reflection
- the Member’s response was defensive
- the Member did not apologise for the harm caused
- she considered herself to be robust but the Member’s words had a profound impact on her
- there was no proper apology from the Member; the Member did not visit her
- if the Member had properly apologised, that would not be enough for having used the N word
- she did not feel the Member understood the harm she had caused
- the Member had no respect for her as a manager or a °Ú…] person
- the Member had applied for her job; this may have impacted on her choice of words
- the Member’s use of the N word was intentional; there was no reason to use the word
- she had obtained a new office and made a member of staff permanent but her rapport with the Member did not improve
- she had a very strong reaction to the Member’s use of the N word
- she thought it was better to take time to reflect on what the best course of action would be
- thereafter the environment was toxic and degrading
- she found it harder and harder to come to work
- she could manage the service but could not manage the individual
- [she cares passionately about the students]
- [she wanted to modernise and make improvements to the service]
- she did not assume the Member was angry; she had made observations on the behaviour of the Member
- the Member directed some of her frustrations about the university at her
The Member gave her evidence under affirmation and answered questions put to her by °Ú…] on behalf of Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê¾«×¼×ÊÁÏ.Ìý The core parts of her evidence were:
- °Ú…] was an internal promotion; she had no wellbeing experience
- [°Ú…]] oversaw three services, counselling was one of them]
- She and °Ú…] were discussing placement students newly taken in by the service
- °Ú…] was a Wider Participation University; it allowed lower grades and allowed more opportunities; in the area when °Ú…] was situated there was deprivation and complex family dynamics
- with brand new trainees and such complex cases °Ú…] could be liable for a really serious student compliant
- °Ú…] has a high proportion of LGBTQ+ including trans
- there had been complaints of staff (not counselling staff) misgendering or using the wrong pronouns
- there is a level of sensitivity required ; if things are got wrong this leads to complaints
- counselling trainees work by the textbook, they do as they are taught, they are not flexible or adaptable
- °Ú…] could be liable as a university service if it did not take appropriate precautions
- [the use of trainees would not be free - there would be additional costs involved eg for supervision]
- in the meeting °Ú…] was getting quite agitated; she’s a ‘get things done’ person
- university wide they were trying not to spend money; it’s a smaller university with wider participation but not so much money
- She gave a real life case example
- She had a client at the university who did use the N word as a term of endearment; it was not used in a derogatory way
- a trainee counsellor might think it was OK to reflect that word back
- She did not swap out the word
- She was aware it was racial terminology
- She paused and stopped
- She was very aware of the word she had just used
- She asked °Ú…] how she was
- She apologised if she had caused offence to her
- °Ú…] did not interrupt her
- She moved to an example using the word ‘sh[.]t’; that this could be reflected back, that it would not lead to a serious complaint but that the first example would
- they were two clinical studies; she was in case study mode
- She was so wrapped up in the moment using those examples
- She did not think of the impact they could have had
- She used real life °Ú…] case examples
- It was an honest, clumsy, stupid mistake
- She had no intention to cause harm or trauma; She tried to describe what could lead to a really serious complaint
- She named the °Ú…]; She did not say it was a theoretical example
- She and °Ú…] left the meeting on good terms
- She checked in with °Ú…]; she said she was fine
- [°Ú…] said see you in half an hour at the next meeting]
- from her side they had a very good working relationship eg there was text message where she used the word ‘±ô´Ç±¹±ð’
- it’s upsetting how different °Ú…] experience of the relationship was
- She was excited she got the job
- She did apply for the job; she didn’t want the job; she felt pressurised to apply for the role
- it was serious, there were suicides, there was a lot of liability in that role, she didn’t want it to fall on her, she did not want to be the fall guy
- She was not short listed; it was not surprising
- [°Ú…]’ manager rang her, she said was disappointed but she understood]
- [it should have been confidential that she applied]
- [Prior to applying for that job she was applying for jobs]
- She consciously had no malicious intent
- She was not using that example because of °Ú…]’ skin colour
- She recognised the difference in their skin colour in the meeting
- It was a clinical case study
- In the moment she should have caught myself and said could she come back to °Ú…]
- She did not use that example as racial terminology
- She quoted word for word from her client
- She apologised several times
- [when she left the meeting she and °Ú…] were on good terms]
- [She and °Ú…] were in a management meeting, the next meeting, on good terms]
- if she had known °Ú…] had wanted her to reflect in my email she would have done so
- [°Ú…] made a complaint about her email]
- She genuinely apologised; she wrote a letter of apology
- She takes accountability; She should have used another clinical case study
- She was not angry towards her; She was so excited to have her as her °Ú…] she was so excited to have a °Ú…]
- She joined in February Year 1 - she detailed a number of changes in line management since that time before the appointment of °Ú…]; She wanted stability
- She and °Ú…] had a long, good first meeting, we talked about Jamaica and food
- She had frustrations about the university but not with °Ú…]
- [She left in August Year 3; she had a 3 month notice period]
- °Ú…] stipulated she did not want her on campus; she wanted me working from home 100%, but the needs of students took priority; there were some really vulnerable students that needed to be seen face to face
- The complaint against her was upheld; there was no disciplinary action, no disciplinary procedure
- She did not expect to have to give examples; it was a clumsy, on the spot mistake, she was not prepared; she did not go to the meeting expecting to give examples
- The toxicity was later; °Ú…] wanted her fired; she did not want her on campus; the toxicity was after °Ú…] realised she was not going to be fired
Ìý
Decisions and Reasons for Findings
The Panel received and accepted the advice from its Clerk.
Having fully considered all the evidence, the Panel made its findings.
The Panel considered both °Ú…] and the Member to have given their evidence truthfully.
There were some disputes of fact between °Ú…] and the Member. Where these disputes had an impact on decisions to be made by the Panel, these were required to be resolved by the Panel.
Allegation 1.1 as amended
1.1Ìý On or around 10 November Year 2, during a one-to-one meeting with her manager, °Ú…], the Member said to °Ú…]: Ìý
‘If a student used the word n°Ú…]er in a session, the counsellor should not reflect n°Ú…]er backÌýto them’, or words to that effect’
Found PROVED on the balance of probabilities.
There was no dispute on the oral evidence of °Ú…] and the oral evidence of the Member that the N word was said on at least one occasion by the Member.
Allegation 1.2 i
1.2Ìý The Member’s use of the word ‘n°Ú…]er’ was:
iÌý inappropriate
Found PROVED on the balance of probabilities.
There was no dispute in the oral evidence of °Ú…] and the oral evidence of the Member that the use of the N word was inappropriate.
Allegation 1.2 ii A
1.2Ìý The Member’s use of the word ‘n°Ú…]er’ was:
iiÌý amounted to racial harassment in that:
- the conduct was unwanted by °Ú…]
Found PROVED on the balance of probabilities.
The Panel accepted the evidence of °Ú…], evidence that was not challenged by the Member, of the impact on her of hearing the N word said by the Member.
Allegation 1.2 ii B
1.2Ìý The Member’s use of the word ‘n°Ú…]er’ was:
iiÌý amounted to racial harassment in that:
- the conduct related to °Ú…] race
Found NOT PROVED on the balance of probabilities.
The Panel was satisfied from hearing the oral evidence of the Member that she took her responsibilities as Clinical Lead of the counselling service very seriously. The Panel accepted the oral evidence of the Member that she did not resent °Ú…] appointment to the position that made °Ú…] her °Ú…] nor that she was angry with °Ú…] about the challenges she faced working at °Ú…] and that she considered herself to have a good relationship with °Ú…]. The Panel further accepted the evidence of the Member that in the one to one meeting with °Ú…], in their discussion about using trainee counsellors with no clinical experience, she sought to inform °Ú…], who was not a clinician, of the potentially very serious consequences for °Ú…] if such counsellors were used and that to illustrate such potential consequences she gave a real life case study involving the N word.
The Panel is satisfied that the Member did not use this example because °Ú…] was °Ú…], but used an extreme case example to illustrate the point she was making and that by doing so she made an honest but clumsy, stupid mistake.
Allegation 1.2 ii C
1.2Ìý The Member’s use of the word ‘n°Ú…]er’ was:
iiÌý amounted to racial harassment in that:
- the conduct had the purpose or effect of either violating °Ú…] dignity, or creating anÌýintimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for °Ú…].
As the Panel did not find Allegation 1.2 ii B proved on the balance of probabilities, it was not required to go on to consider allegation 1.2 ii C.
Allegation 1.3 in relation to paragraph 23
1.3Ìý The MemberÌýthereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way whichÌýwas inconsistent with the following paragraph of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in theÌýCounselling Professions 2018: Ìý
- We will take the law concerning equality, diversity and inclusion into careful considerationÌýand strive for a higher standard than the legal minimum. Ìý
Whilst the Panel accepted the Member’s evidence that she used a real life case study in her wish to protect °Ú…] from potentially very serious consequences, in the Panel’s view, by using the whole of the N word when giving this example rather than replacing the N word with, for example, the phrase ‘the N word’, the Member failed to take the law concerning equality, diversity and inclusion into careful considerationÌýand strive for a higher standard than the legal minimum and thereby breached paragraph 23 of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in the Counselling Professions 2018.
Allegation 1.3 in relation to paragraphs 48 and 56
- We will avoid any actions that will bring our profession into disrepute.ÌýÌý
- Practitioners will treat colleagues fairly and foster their capability and equality ofÌýopportunity. Ìý
As the Panel found that the Member did not use the example because °Ú…] was °Ú…] but that she made an honest but clumsy, stupid mistake, the decision of the Panel was that the Member was not in breach of either paragraph 48 or 56 of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in the Counselling Professions 2018.
Allegation 1.4
1.4 Allegations 1.1-1.3 are Professional Misconduct as defined in the Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê¾«×¼×ÊÁÏ Professional ConductÌýProcedure 2018. Ìý
Whist the Panel found the Member’s proven conduct in relation to Allegations 1.1, 1.2i and 1.2ii A to have been in breach of paragraph 23 of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in the Counselling Professions 2018, it did not consider this conduct to be sufficiently serious to amount to professional misconduct as defined in the Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê¾«×¼×ÊÁÏ Professional Conduct Procedure 2018.
The Panel was not required to consider this Allegation in relation to those Allegations found not proved.ÌýÌý
Allegation 2.1
2.1 On 1 March Year 3, the Member was notified in writing that it had been decided that theÌýcomplaint against her would proceed to disciplinary action and that it had been considered by aÌýUniversity Disciplinary Panel. Ìý
Found PROVED on the balance of probabilities.
There was no dispute on the evidence that this Allegation was factually correct.
Allegation 2.2
2.2 The Member did not promptly notify the Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê¾«×¼×ÊÁÏ of these disciplinary procedures against her. Ìý
Found PROVED on the balance of probabilities.
There was no dispute on the evidence that this Allegation was factually correct.
Allegation 2.3
2.3 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by actingÌýin a way which was inconsistent with the following paragraph of the Ethical Framework for GoodÌýPractice in the Counselling Professions 2018: Ìý
- We will promptly notify this Association about any criminal charges or disciplinaryÌýprocedures brought against us. We will also notify this Association of civil claims arising fromÌýwork in the counselling professions, or if we have been declared bankrupt. Ìý
As there was no factual dispute in relation to Allegations 2.1 and 2.2, the Panel went on to find that by her conduct the Member was in breach of paragraph 47 of the Ethical Framework for GoodÌýPractice in the Counselling Professions 2018.
Sanction
On 5 August Year 4 the Panel reconvened via Microsoft Teams to consider what, if any, sanction was appropriate in relation to the Member.
The Panel reminded itself of its findings:
(a) of the words spoken by the Member and that this was found to be a beach of paragraph 23 of the 2018 Ethical Framework, and
(b) of the failure of the Member to promptly notify Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê¾«×¼×ÊÁÏ of disciplinary action against her and that this was found to be a breach of paragraph 47 of the 2018 Ethical Framework
The Member provided the following documents for the purposes of sanction:
(a) 3 pages of information about a °Ú…] she may have, and
(b) a further 3 pages of refection and information about CPD she has undertaken.
Reasons for Decision
Ìý
When considering sanction the Panel took into account all of the information provided by the Member prior to the hearing, the evidence given by the Member at the hearing and the documentation provided by the Member since the hearing.Ìý
- On the words spoken by the Member
The Panel was impressed by the Member’s insight at the hearing into her conduct in saying the words she had said to °Ú…] and the impact of those words on °Ú…].
The view of the Panel is that the Member has acted professionally in proactively undertaking CPD of a kind the Panel would have set as part of a sanction. The number of CPD hours undertaken by the Member is approximately equal to the number of hours the Panel would have imposed as part of a sanction.
The Panel has carefully considered the reflections provided by the Member before the hearing and the one she has provided specifically for sanction. Considering these reflections as a whole, the Panel is satisfied that the Member has reflected widely and has taken learning from the CPD she has undertaken and has incorporated this learning into her practice.
In these particular circumstances, the sanction imposed by the Panel will not include further CPD or reflection in relation to the words spoken by the Member
- On failing the promptly inform Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê¾«×¼×ÊÁÏ of the disciplinary proceedings taken against her
From hearing the Member’s evidence and from reading her reflections the Panel is satisfied that the Member now has an enhanced understanding of her obligation to self report to Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê¾«×¼×ÊÁÏ and that she is very unlikely to repeat this conduct.
In the circumstances, the sanction imposed by the Panel will not include further CPD or reflection in relation to her failure to promptly inform Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê¾«×¼×ÊÁÏ of the disciplinary proceedings against her.
Decision
The decision of the Panel was that, although the Member wrote an email to °Ú…] after she (the Member) spoke the words in question and wrote a letter of apology to °Ú…] within the disciplinary process, it considered it appropriate that the Member provide to Ïã¸ÛÁùºÏ²Ê¾«×¼×ÊÁÏ within 4 weeks of receipt of this decision:
- A genuine sincere and concise apology addressed to °Ú…] recognising and acknowledging the distress caused to her by the words she used.
(Where ellipses [ . . . ] are displayed, they indicate an omission of text)
Ìý