August 2008 - Desiree Silverstone - Reference No: 514183, London N11 3HD 

Information was received by BACP under Article 4.6 of the Memorandum & Articles of Association, which raised concerns about the suitability of Ms Silverstone’s continued membership of BACP.  The nature of the allegations suggested that her membership of BACP could have brought this Association and/or the professions of counselling and psychotherapy into disrepute and that there may have been serious breach(es) of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy.

Following an Appeal Hearing, the task of the Appeal Panel was to decide whether or not the decision of the Article 4.6 Panel was correct in all the circumstances.

The Appeal Panel considered very carefully the reasons why Article 4.6 had been implemented; these are set out below, together with some comments made by the Appeal Panel, which are in italics:

1) Ms Silverstone appeared to have used her professional status unwisely to write reports about Ms A and her family, which relied on third party information and her own speculation about Ms A, without having sought Ms A’s permission to do so, or having met her. Ms Silverstone circulated these to others, with the intention they should influence a Family Court.  The content of the reports raised serious levels of concern for the Panel about Ms Silverstone’s ethics and competence: her opinions and conclusions did not appear to be well balanced, they also did not appear to be supported by appropriate evidence, and they included perjorative and categorical statements about Ms A.

2) The standard of behaviour in writing a psychological report on Ms A without first obtaining Ms A’s approval fell below what could reasonably be expected of a member of the profession.

3) Ms Silverstone agreed to meet and question a child (the son of her client), whom she knew - or ought to have known - was the subject of Court Proceedings and therefore under the jurisdiction of the Court.  Ms Silverstone prepared reports on him and his family without checking whether consent was needed or had been obtained from the Court before she did so.

It was Ms Silverstone’s contention that the child was not under the jurisdiction of the Court as he was not a ‘ward’ of Court.  However, the Appeal Panel’s view was that as the child was subject to Court proceedings under the Children Act he was, therefore, under the jurisdiction of the Court.

4) Based on the information presented to it, the Panel was of the opinion that Ms Silverstone showed insufficient awareness of the likely impact of making a psychological diagnosis, and expressing emphatic professional opinions, about an individual who was not her client and about members of her family. This indicates a lack of respect and a failure to uphold the values associated with “enhancing the quality of professional knowledge and its application” (Ethical Framework, page 2).

5) There is no indication that Ms Silverstone sought appropriate advice or supervision to manage the difficult child protection concerns and associated potential conflicts of interest arising from this case. Ms Silverstone appeared to have been working beyond her competence. (“ …. the practitioner should be alert to the possibility of conflicting responsibilities between those concerning their client, other people who may be significantly affected, and society generally”. Ethical Framework, point 14, page 6).

The Panel was satisfied that Ms Silverstone did seek supervision and advice on this matter; however, the Panel found that the supervision and advice was not appropriate, adequate or, more importantly, independent given the particular circumstances; a point that Ms Silverstone accepted and, indeed, she stated that she had been “negligent in not seeking separate legal advice”..

6) Ms Silverstone appeared to have confused the boundaries between the role of acting as advocate for her client (Mr B); acting as psychological assessor for Ms A, without her permission; and conducting an assessment of the child’s (Y’s) needs. These conflicting roles were undertaken without fully recognising the importance of professional impartiality, and whilst knowing that court proceedings were ongoing or imminent.  (“Ensuring the probity of practice is important both to those who are directly affected and to the standing of the profession as a whole”, Ethical Framework, page 9).

The Panel accepted that Ms Silverstone was not acting as Mr B’s advocate, but found that there was much confusion around her role with him; whether she was his Mackenzie Friend or acting solely in a professional capacity and she did not make sufficient effort to clarify this at the outset, but relied on advice from Mr B and his advocate.

7) In Ms Silverstone’s psychological assessment report on the child Y, her transcript of her conversation includes asking the child leading questions about the child’s mother which, to the Panel, appeared to be unethical.

In light of the above findings, the Appeal Panel decided the following paragraphs of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy had been breached:

Paragraph10:

Ms Silverstone did not make herself aware of, or understand, the legal requirements of her work with parties subject to court proceedings and the implications of this.

Paragraph 15:

The Panel was concerned by the leading nature of questions put to a child who was aged 4 at the time and the child’s capacity to understand what was happening

Paragraph 43:

The Panel was seriously concerned that Ms Silverstone had written psychological reports, in her professional capacity as a therapist, about persons she had not met and that these did not demonstrate respect for others.  Additionally, the same concerns were expressed in relation to her comments on the CAFCASS Officer’s Report which was submitted to the Court and seen by the CAFCASS officer; this also did not demonstrate respect for another professional.  Additionally, Ms Silverstone acknowledged that she was ‘waging a campaign against CAFCASS ... which was unwise’.

Paragraph 47:

For the same reasons outlined above.

Paragraph 48:

Ms Silverstone did not learn or take account of the different protocols or conventions applicable to Family Court proceedings.  She said that she had been “naïve, foolish and that it was not a wise thing to do”; that she’d only listened to the subjective advice that she’d been given and that she should have explored the implications further by seeking independent legal advice.  In addition, she stated that she did not understand the implications of what she was undertaking, i.e. getting involved with persons subject to Family Court proceedings and, in this particular case, particularly bitter and acrimonious proceedings.

Paragraph 55:

The Panel commented that Ms Silverstone should have been acting in the child’s best interests only, given the nature of the proceedings.  She clearly agreed to act on behalf of one party, but got caught up in the confusion of her own role and became entangled in the dispute between her ‘client’ and his ex partner and, in her own words, was “waging a personal campaign against CAFCASS”.  Ms Silverstone stated that her concerns for the child, Y, had “clouded her professional judgement”.

Paragraph 56:

In not seeking professional support and advice that was adequate, appropriate or independent, Ms Silverstone’s involvement in this case became detrimental to her own well-being and affected her professional judgement.

Mitigation

The Appeal Panel wished to commend Ms Silverstone for her honesty and was impressed by her statement that she had been “humbled by this process”.  Ms Silverstone also gave some detail of her learning from this case although she stated that much of her learning will come in more detail over the coming weeks/months. 

Decision

Accordingly, the Appeal Panel was unanimous in that the decision of the Article 4.6 Panel was correct (with the minor adjustments) and therefore her appeal against the implementation of Article 4.6, had failed.  As a result, her membership of BACP has been withdrawn.

Any future application for membership will be considered under Article 4.3 of the Memorandum and Articles of the Association.

JUNE 2008: ADAM TASKER - Reference No: 544734, OXFORD OX3 8HF

A client made a complaint against Mr Adam Tasker which was submitted under the Professional Conduct Procedure.  The complaint was accepted for adjudication by the Pre-Hearing Assessment Panel.  Mr Tasker decided not to respond to, or participate in the Procedure.  Consequently, the complaint, together with his failure to co-operate with the implementation of the Professional Conduct Procedure was referred for consideration under Article 4.6 of the Memorandum & Articles of Association.  

The allegations considered by the Article 4.6 Panel were as follows:

• That Mr Tasker knowingly exploited a client sexually with unsolicited hugs, physical massages, kissing and suggestive propositions to meet outside of therapy.
• That Mr Tasker abused the trust of the client placed in him when she was vulnerable.
• That, in addition to the sexual advances, Mr Tasker allegedly failed to observe the conventional therapeutic boundaries by engaging the client in social conversation after the sessions, neglecting the time boundaries, and not offering an explicit contract for therapeutic work.

Mr Tasker did not respond to the complaint submitted by the client under the Professional Conduct Procedure.  In Mr Tasker’s letter of 8 November 2007 he refused to participate in the Procedure and be professionally accountable to the Association for his actions, which indicated that he may have breached paragraph 42 of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy.   

Mr Tasker, was invited to respond to the complaint and also the fact that he failed to be accountable under the Professional Conduct Procedure, but again, did not make a response.

DECISION
The Panel decided to implement Article 4.6 of the Memorandum and Articles of Association in this case, and withdraw BACP membership from Adam Tasker, to take effect 28 days from notification of this decision.  The Panel gave reasons for its decision as follows:

• In the absence of any response from Mr Tasker, the Article 4.6 Panel accepted the Complainant’s evidence as coherent and credible.
• Mr Tasker chose not to respond to, nor participate in the Professional Conduct Procedure, which in itself, is a serious contravention of his obligations under paragraph 42 of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy and demonstrates a lack of professional accountability.

Any future application for membership of this Association will be considered under the Memorandum and Articles of the Association.

JUNE 2008: BRIAN HORROCKS - Reference No: 559030, NEWPORT PO30 5QZ

A client made a complaint against Mr Brian Horrocks which was submitted under the Professional Conduct Procedure.  The complaint was accepted for adjudication by the Pre-Hearing Assessment Panel.  Mr Horrocks decided not to respond to, or participate in the Procedure.  Consequently, the complaint, together with his failure to co-operate with the implementation of the Professional Conduct Procedure was referred for consideration under Article 4.6 of the Memorandum & Articles of Association.

The allegations considered by the Article 4.6 Panel were as follows:

• That Mr Horrocks abused his client’s trust in order to gain financial advantage.
• That Mr Horrocks was not honest, straight forward, and accountable in financial matters concerning his professional relationship with the client.
• That there was no clear contract for the work and that Mr Horrocks did not adhere to the initial terms on which his service was being offered.
• That Mr Horrocks disrespected the client’s trust and autonomy by instigating a dual relationship with him, by disregarding appropriate professional boundaries and by enforcing the client’s compliance through emotional manipulation.
• That Mr Horrocks did not have the competence to deal with the client’s serious behavioural problem.
• That Mr Horrocks did not comply with the implementation of the Professional Conduct Procedure in contravention of his obligation under paragraph 42 of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy.

Mr Horrocks, was invited to respond to the complaint and also the fact that he failed to be accountable under the Professional Conduct Procedure, but again, did not make a response.

DECISION

The Panel decided to implement Article 4.6 of the Memorandum and Articles of Association and withdraw BACP membership from Brian Horrocks, to take effect 28 days from notification of this decision.  The Panel gave reasons for its decision as follows:

• In the absence of any response from Mr Horrocks, the Complainant had provided sufficient evidence for the Panel to be satisfied that there have been serious breaches of BACP’s Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy.
• Mr Horrocks chose not to respond to, nor participate in the Professional Conduct Procedure, which in itself, is a serious contravention of his obligations under paragraph 42 of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy and demonstrates a lack of professional accountability.

Mr Horrocks was given the opportunity to appeal the decision, but no appeal was received.  Consequently his membership was withdrawn.

Any future application for membership of this Association will be considered under the Memorandum and Articles of the Association.

June 2008: RAYMOND COLLEDGE - Reference No: 535480, BIDEFORD EX39 3PY

Information was received by BACP, from sources including a Complainant, which raised questions about the suitability of Mr Raymond Colledge’s continued membership of this Association.  The matters raised were considered under Article 4.6 of the Memorandum & Articles of Association.

The allegations considered by the Article 4.6 Panel were as follows:

• Mr.Colledge allegedly committed sexual acts with a pupil in a school where he was a teacher, whilst allegedly performing a counselling role, resulting in his dismissal from the school, a police investigation, information being held on record relating to the enquiry and recently being the subject of Child Protection Strategy meetings.
• While the allegations and police investigation related to a period before Mr. Colledge submitted an application for membership of BACP, he failed to disclose these matters upon application, contrary to the requirements of his signed application dated 17 June 2000.  Furthermore, he had not made disclosure of these matters to BACP during his period of membership.
• A County Council had sufficient concerns for strategy meetings to take place upon learning of Mr. Colledge’s work as a counsellor, and that as part of that work he may be working with children.  Further evidence of their concern was that they agreed to share their concerns with BACP for consideration under Article 4.6 of the Memorandum and Articles of Association.

Mr Colledge was invited to respond, and made a response in which he denied the allegations.  The Panel requested further information from a number of parties which was supplied.  Mr Colledge was also requested to supply further information, which was not received.  The Panel carefully considered all the information submitted together with Mr Colledge’s response.

DECISION

The Panel decided to implement Article 4.6 of the Memorandum and Articles of Association in this case, and withdraw BACP membership from Ray Colledge, to take effect 28 days from notification of this decision.  The Panel gave reasons for its decision as follows:

• The extract from the witness statement provided by the Constabulary was very credible and in support of the information supplied by the Complainant and the County Council, and appeared to undermine Mr. Colledge’s statement.
• The Panel was of the opinion that, on the information considered, there was some foundation in the allegations, and that, were these matters to come into the public domain, Mr Colledge’s continued membership of BACP could bring the reputation of BACP and/or the profession into disrepute.
• Mr. Colledge failed to disclose these matters, which are of a grave nature, upon application for membership of BACP, contrary to the requirements of his signed application dated 17 June 2000.  Furthermore, he had not made disclosure of these matters to BACP during his period of membership.
• Mr Colledge was given the opportunity to appeal the decision, but no appeal was received.  Consequently his membership was withdrawn. 

Any future application for membership of this Association will be considered under the Memorandum and Articles of the Association.

June 2008: Philip Blundell - reference no: 587143, Morecambe LA4 5QD

Information was received by BACP, which raised questions about the suitability of Mr Philip Blundell’s continued membership of this Association.  The matters raised were considered under Article 4.6 of the Memorandum & Articles of Association.  The Article 4.6 Panel decided to implement Article 4.6 of the Memorandum and Articles of Association and withdraw BACP membership from Mr Blundell.  Mr Blundell appealed against the decision and the matter was considered by the Article 4.6 Appeal Panel.

Mr Blundell appealed against the Article 4.6 Panel’s decision to withdraw BACP membership for the following reasons:

• Mr Blundell had pleaded guilty in court to an offence of theft which involved a breach of trust to his employer over a long period of time, and this was incompatible with the values of counselling and psychotherapy.
• The serious view taken of this by the court was reflected in the length of sentence imposed.
• If the public was accurately informed of all the circumstances of this case, its trust in the profession would be adversely affected.
• Mr Blundell failed to notify BACP, as his professional body and as required to do so by his signed declaration, of his custodial prison sentence and the acts and circumstances that led to his imprisonment.

DECISION

It was the duty of the Appeal Panel to decide whether the Article 4.6 Panel’s decision was fair and appropriate.

Mr Blundell admitted he had been foolish, dishonest and guilty of a lack of clarity with reference to the theft charges and the acts that led up to that charge.  The Panel, therefore, was unanimous in its decision that his appeal against the first three bullet points of the Article 4.6 Panel’s decision was not allowed

However, the Panel accepted that Mr Blundell was not in a position to notify BACP of his prison sentence at the time, but that he had kept the College [where he had attended as a student] apprised of events throughout this time.  Therefore, his appeal was upheld on the fourth bullet point.

In view of the circumstances, the Panel decided that his membership of BACP should be withdrawn and that its decision would be published on the website and in Therapy Today.  However, the Panel decided that Mr Blundell could re-apply for membership at any time after his sentence is spent in November 2008.  Any re-application for membership will be considered under Article 4.3 of the Memorandum & Articles of Association and any successful re-application will be published on the website and in Therapy Today accordingly.

Mr Blundell is to be complimented on seeking therapy and supervision since his discharge from H M Prison; however, the Appeal Panel wish that Mr Blundell reflect carefully on his fitness to practise and his level of competence prior to re-applying for membership of BACP as this will need to be demonstrated in any re-application.  Mr Blundell is advised to contact the Professional Conduct Department for further details at any time.

October 2007: Irene Steele – reference no: 514259 – Shrewsbury SY5 9DE

A sanction was imposed on Ms Steele following a Professional Conduct Hearing, the outcome of which was reported in the October 2006 edition Therapy Today.

Ms Steele failed to comply with the sanction and consequently her membership of BACP was terminated. Any future application for membership of BACP will be considered under Article 4.3 of the Memorandum and Articles of the Association.

May 2007: Geoffrey Walker – reference no: 518644 – Leeds LS16 7QG

Information from a university had been received by BACP, under Article 4.6 of the Memorandum & Articles of Association, which raised concerns about the suitability of Mr Walker’s continued membership of this Association. An Article 4.6 Panel had decided that Article 4.6 should be invoked in this case. Following an Appeal Hearing, the task of the Appeal Panel was to decide whether or not the decision of the Article 4.6 Panel was correct in all the circumstances. The summary of the allegations is as follows:

A complaint had been received by a university from a student on a counselling course who was receiving supervision from Mr Walker, an approved counsellor and supervisor of the university at that time. The student complained that Mr Walker acted unethically in that his actions and comments constituted harassment under the university’s Harassment Policy. The student’s complaints were, as described by Mr Walker, that he:

• used informal and sometimes inappropriate language;
• focussed too frequently on matters of a sexual nature;
• used a particular process about body image inappropriately causing her embarrassment;
• used personal disclosure;
• expressed a personal opinion of the job of the student’s new boyfriend in a derogatory fashion.

The complaints were upheld by the university which considered that Mr Walker’s behaviour towards the student was considered to be professionally inappropriate and constituted verbal harassment of a sexual nature.

The nature of the information received suggested that Mr Walker’s membership of BACP had brought, and/or could continue to bring, the Association and/or the reputations of counselling and psychotherapy into disrepute.

In response to this information, Mr Walker "owned that he was culpable in respect to some of the complaints". However, in addition to the above complaints, Mr Walker also admitted two further incidents which were of considerable concern to the Appeal Panel:

• he acknowledged that he had previously invited a participant on a course to go out with him;
• and that two other clients had discontinued working with him, expressing discomfort with his informal approach.

In considering these matters, Mr Walker identified some reasons for his behaviour and sought personal therapy on these matters for a short period. In addition, he had changed his supervisor, recognising that his relationship with his previous supervisor had become "too complacent", and had put various strategies in place in an attempt to minimise these events occurring again. Nevertheless, Mr Walker detailed a number of personal issues and, coupled with the very short period of personal therapy on these matters, the Appeal Panel was also concerned about his fitness to practice.

The Appeal Panel noted that the written responses and explanations of the Appellant were inadequate given the serious nature of the original complaint, and that they needed to test the validity of what had been written and establish the depth of learning that had taken place. In the circumstances, the Panel expressed considerable frustration and concern over the non-attendance of Mr Walker in that it was denied the opportunity to question him on these matters.

The Appeal Panel noted and considered the reasons given by Mr Walker for his non-attendance at the Hearing and decided that these were neither good nor sufficient. The Panel was further concerned at the lack of robustness on Mr Walker’s part in not making himself available; by comments made about a "wall of professional rules"; and his contentedness to self-regulate himself, whilst failing to be professionally accountable to the Association.

The Appeal Panel noted the Appellant’s protests in his correspondence. However, it needs to be stated that, as a member of BACP, Mr Walker should understand BACP procedures and processes were, and have been, duly followed. The paucity of his response made it all the more important that a Panel should have had an opportunity to question him to verify and clarify these matters. It is sad to note that he felt he would not "receive fair or balanced treatment" when that is the essence of these procedures.

Taking into account all communications forwarded and especially on reviewing the Appellant’s letter dated 20 November 2006, the task of the Appeal Panel was to decide whether or not the decision of the Article 4.6 Panel was correct in all the circumstances.

In mitigation, the Appeal Panel noted Mr Walker’s acknowledgement of his "culpability" in the acts complained about and the steps he states he has taken to reduce or minimise the risk of these acts occurring again, coupled with the fact that he has been practicing for 11 years.

Nevertheless, the Panel recognised the seriousness of the complaints made to the University and, coupled with Mr Walker’s refusal to be professionally accountable, it was unanimous in its decision that the Article 4.6 Panel’s decision was correct in all the circumstances. Accordingly, the Panel decided that Mr Walker’s appeal should be denied. As such, his membership of BACP was terminated.

Should Mr Walker wish to re-apply for membership of BACP in the future, any application will be considered under Article 4.3 of the Memorandum & Articles of Association whereupon he will be required, in person, to respond to the matters raised in this case.

Apr 2007: ASSIST Trauma Care – reference no: 110700 – Rugby CV21 2RX

A sanction was imposed on ASSIST Trauma Care following a Professional Conduct Hearing, the outcome of which was reported in the July 2006 edition of this journal.

ASSIST Trauma Care failed to comply with the sanction and any future application for membership of BACP will be considered under Article 4.3 of the Memorandum and Articles of Association.

Apr 2007: Michael Curran – reference no: 502184 – Belfast BT12 7AS

Information was received by BACP under Article 4.6 of the Memorandum & Articles of Association, which raised concerns about the suitability of Mr Curran’s continued membership of BACP. The nature of the allegations suggested that his membership of BACP had brought, or if his membership continued, could bring the reputation of the Association and/or professions of counselling and psychotherapy into disrepute and that there may have been serious breaches of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling & Psychotherapy.

Following an Appeal Hearing, the task of the Appeal Panel was to decide whether or not the decision of the Article 4.6 Panel was correct in all the circumstances.

The Article 4.6 Panel was concerned that Mr Curran appeared to have had a sexual relationship with a person whom he had informed he was counselling. The information indicated that he referred to his relationship with the woman as more than a friendship, but as a counselling relationship. While Mr Curran appeared to contend that it was a "joke", the Panel was of the opinion that the woman took the reference to be a serious one and that he led the woman to believe that he was acting as a counsellor. It appeared to the Panel that the woman may even have thought that what was being offered to her by way of intimacy was connected with his position as a counsellor and that Mr Curran made use of his counsellor status to seduce the woman.

The Panel was further concerned that Mr Curran’s alleged behaviour and lack of boundaries distressed the woman, did her a disservice, and could damage the profession. The Panel was also of the opinion that Mr Curran’s alleged behaviour did not demonstrate adherence to the ethical principles of counselling and psychotherapy, nor demonstrated the personal moral qualities of integrity and respect, as referred to in the Ethical Framework for Good practice in Counselling & Psychotherapy.

In the course of its deliberations, the Panel was cognisant that this constituted one of many examples of good and sufficient reasons for the implementation of Article 4.6: "members who are accused of, or have committed, acts that are deemed incompatible with the values of counselling and/or psychotherapy".

The Appeal Panel was unanimous in its decision that the decision of the Article 4.6 Panel was correct and that his appeal should be denied. Consequently Mr Curran’s membership of BACP has been terminated forthwith.

Any future application for membership will be considered under Article 4.3 of the Memorandum and Articles of the Association.

Dec 2006: SUSAN BODGENER – reference no: 500854 – ELLESMERE SY12 0HD

Information was received by BACP under Article 4.6 of the Memorandum & Articles of Association, which raised questions about the suitability of Ms Bodgener’s continued membership of this Association. The nature of the allegations suggested that her membership of BACP has brought, and/or may bring, the reputation of this Association and/or the professions of counselling and psychotherapy into disrepute and that there may have been a serious breach of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy.

BACP was concerned by the alleged nature of the disciplinary action taken against Ms Bodgener by the NHS and her subsequent dismissal for gross misconduct. It was further concerned with the allegations that Ms Bodgener appeared to have being working outside her level of competence and that she failed to inform BACP of the action taken against her.

It was decided to implement Article 4.6 of the Memorandum and Articles of Association and Ms Bodgener was given the opportunity to appeal against this decision and be heard by an independent panel. Initially, Ms Bodgener appealed and subsequently withdrew her appeal. Ms Bodgener accepted that the withdrawal of her appeal would result in her membership of BACP being terminated forthwith. Consequently Ms Bodgener’s membership of BACP has been terminated.

Any future application for membership will be considered under Article 4.3 of the Memorandum and Articles of the Association.

Sep 2006: Beauchamp Colclough – reference no: 501805 – NG32 3QB

Information was received by BACP, under Article 4.6 of the Memorandum & Articles of Association, which raised questions about the suitability of Mr Beauchamp Colclough’s continued membership of this Association. The nature of the allegations suggested that his membership of BACP has brought, and/or may bring, the reputation of this Association and/or the professions of counselling and psychotherapy into disrepute, and that there may have been serious breaches of the Codes of Ethics & Practice/Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy.

BACP was concerned with the seriousness of a number of allegations received regarding the unethical treatment of some of Mr Colclough’s clients. The nature of the allegations were substantiated from a number of complainants, including information published in the national press. The nature of the allegations indicated that there may have been a breach of the principle of non-maleficence: Mr Colclough having allegedly sexually and emotionally exploited a number of his female clients. Additionally, the information received also indicated that there may have been a breach of the ethical principle of fidelity since the alleged abuse of these clients involved the fostering of trust; and that clause 18 of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy, under the section Keeping Trust, had been breached in that he may have abused his clients’ trust to gain sexual advantage, had sexual relations with these clients, including sexual intercourse, and exhibited sexualised behaviour.

Mr Colclough did not challenge these allegations nor appeal against the decision to implement Article 4.6 of the Memorandum and Articles of Association and consequently his membership of BACP has been terminated forthwith.

Any future application for membership of this Association will be considered under the Memorandum and Articles of the Association.

These findings are published for the purposes of public information in the interests of protecting the public. It is recognised that there can be learning opportunities for other practitioners and, as such, should any reader wish to use the information for educational, or other associated, purposes, please ensure that you remove the name, together with any other identifying features of the practitioner concerned, as this information is not deemed to be relevant in these circumstances.

Feb 2006: Sarah Lander – reference no: 536714 – Leamington Spa CV32 6SA

A sanction was imposed on Ms Lander following a Professional Conduct Hearing, the outcome of which was reported in the March 2005 edition of this journal. Ms Lander failed to comply with the sanction and consequently her membership of BACP was terminated.

Any future application for membership of BACP will be considered under Article 4.6 of the Memorandum and Articles of the Association.

Dec 2005: Elizabeth Randell – reference no: 530216 – Surrey RH4 1LA

A sanction was imposed on Ms Randell following a Professional Conduct Hearing, the outcome of which was reported in the October 2004 edition of this journal. Ms Randell failed to comply with the sanction and consequently her membership of BACP was terminated.

Any future application for membership of BACP will be considered under Article 4.6 of the Memorandum and Articles of the Association.

Oct 2005: Paul K. Carney – reference no: 501452 – Warwick CV34 5HR

Information was received by BACP, under Article 4.6 of the Memorandum and Articles of Association, which raised questions about the suitability of Mr Carney’s continued membership of this Association. The nature of the allegations suggested that his continuing membership of BACP may have brought or may yet bring this Association and/or counselling into disrepute, and that there may have been serious breaches of the Codes of Ethics & Practice/Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy. The Panel was specifically concerned as follows:

Letters indicated that Mr Carney may have abused a client in a number of ways, exercising power over the client, abusing the client both psychologically and sexually. It would appear that he had breached the ethical principles of fidelity, autonomy, beneficence and non-maleficence. It would also appear that breaches of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy had occurred under ’Quality of care’ page 5, particularly in regard to dual relationships and under ’Keeping trust’, with particular regard to paragraph 18, page 7.

The letters of apology appeared to continue the abusive language by, in one case, saying that he did enjoy the thought of his former client being able to ’climb up on to my [his] lap’, and still declaring his affections.

Mr Carney did not appeal against the decision to implement Article 4.6 of the Memorandum and Articles of Association and consequently his membership of BACP has been terminated.

Any future application for membership will be considered under Article 4.6
of the Memorandum and Articles of the Association.