December 2024: KS, Reference No 00722338, Registrant ID 45146
December 2024: Kevin Spruce, Reference No 00722338, Registrant ID 45146
The Professional Conduct Panel consisting of [..] remotely via Microsoft Teams to consider the complaint made by […] (the Complainant) against Dr Kevin Spruce (the former Member), a former British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP) individual member.
In attendance were […] (Clerk’s Assistant) and […] (Clerk to the Panel).
The Complainant was accompanied by […] (Professional Supporter). The former Member was not in attendance.
Summary
1. The Complainant has complained about Kevin Spruce, a former BACP Individual Member as follows:
2. The Complainant, […], had counselling sessions with Kevin Spruce, between 30 August Year 1 and 20 September Year 1. The Complainant attended the sessions weekly and had four sessions in total.
3. The Complainant stated that during the four sessions she had with the former Member he made several inappropriate comments which made the Complainant uncomfortable, including:
a. The former Member informed the Complainant on numerous occasions that she was attractive, and the former Member also said to the Complainant he would take her out for a drink.
b. The former Member stated that the Complainant should thank him for a compliment and asked the Complainant to tell him that he was handsome in order to show the Complainant how to say thanks for a compliment.
c. The former Member asked the Complainant to show him where her ex-partner touched her using words such as 'front bottom' with accompanying gestures.
4. The former Member also made personal disclosures, for example, he informed the Complainant that he had not had […] with his […] yet. The Complainant stated that the Member spoke a lot about his own life during the sessions and the Complainant felt that she was not able to change topic.
5. The former Member made disclosures of other clients by mentioning to the Complainant details of their sexual relationships.
6. The former Member also hugged the Complainant when she did not want to be hugged by him.
7. The Complainant attached the following to her complaint:
a. Counselling agreement dated 24 August Year1 (signed by the former Member only)
b. Form for client/doctor details
c. Email exchange dated 20 August Year 1 to 23 August Year 1
d. Text exchange dated 22 September Year 1
8. Dr Spruce sent in a preliminary response stating that:
a. due to matters regarding his health, he had retired from the counselling profession.
b. he does not remember the Complainant nor does he recall stating anything inappropriate to the Complainant. The former Member confirms that he has been […] for a while and so he would not have asked the Complainant 'out for a drink'.
c. he does not disclose personal matters to clients and he lets clients lead the sessions. While he will use certain terminology regarding difficult matters, he confirms with the client first whether it is okay to do this.
d. he will consider hugging a client upon their request and recalls hugging only three clients in his career.
e. if he discusses the circumstances of previous clients, he does this in an anonymous way to make the client feel more at ease.
Allegations
Allegation 1
1.1 The former Member failed to maintain appropriate professional and/ or personal boundaries with the Complainant in that while providing therapeutic services to the Complainant he:
(a) told the Complainant he would take her out for a drink, and/or
(b) asked the Complainant to call him handsome, and/or
(c) hugged the Complainant against her wishes
1.2 The former Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with paragraphs 33 a. and/or 35 of ‘Good Practice ’in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018 which state:
33: We will establish and maintain appropriate professional and personal
boundaries in our relationships with clients ensuring that:
a. these boundaries are consistent with the aims of working together and
beneficial to the client, and/or
35: We will not exploit or abuse our clients in any way: financially, emotionally, physically, sexually or spiritually
Allegation 2
2.1 The former Member asked the Complainant to demonstrate on herself where her ex-partner touched her.
2.2 The former Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with paragraphs 21 and/or 35 of ‘Good Practice’ in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018 which state:
21: We will respect our clients’ privacy and dignity.
35: We will not exploit or abuse our clients in any way: financially, emotionally, physically, sexually or spiritually.
Allegation 3
3.1 The former Member failed to make the Complainant the focus of his attention while in therapeutic session or sessions with the Complainant and/or failed to maintain client confidentiality by:
(a) making personal disclosures about himself, and/or
(b) making disclosures about other clients
3.2 The former Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with paragraphs 7 and/or 55 a. of ‘Good Practice ’in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018 which state:
7: We will make each client the primary focus of our attention and our work during our sessions together, and/or
55: We will protect the confidentiality and privacy of clients by:
a. actively protecting information about clients from unauthorised access or disclosure
Documents and evidence before the Panel
The Panel was provided with the following written materials:
• The decision and papers of the Investigation and Assessment Committee.
• The formal response submitted by the former Member.
• Further information provided by the parties.
• The relevant Ethical Frameworks.
• The Professional Conduct Procedure 2018.
The Panel read all of the above, then questioned, and listened to the verbal evidence provided by the Complainant.
The Panel had to consider the following:
• The allegations made.
• The written and verbal evidence.
• What weight should be attached to the evidence.
• On balance, whether the complaints should be upheld.
Preliminary matters
The Panel noted that Dr Spruce had previously stated, in an email dated 15 February Year 3, that he was unable to attend the hearing due to his health but that he gave his “full permission for the hearing to proceed in my absence”. Within the email Dr Spruce provide a response to the allegations and noted that if he did attend, he would be saying “no more than what has been said above”. A professional conduct panel determined on 15 May Year 3 that, in the circumstances, it would be reasonable and proportionate to proceed with the Practice Review Hearing in the absence of the former Member in accordance with Paragraph 5.9.(a) of the PCP. The Panel was satisfied that Dr Spruce had been provided with the details of today’s hearing and with the necessary links to allow him to join should he wish to do so. However, he had not done so.
Findings
The Committee took into account that there were a number of significant differences in the information provided by the parties. It reminded itself that where there was no evidence on a particular point, or the evidence available was disputed or incomplete, it had to apply the civil standard of proof and make its decision on the balance of probabilities.
On balance, having fully considered the above, the Panel made the following findings:
Allegation 1
The panel took into account the former Member’s submissions as to why he would not have invited out […] or any client but noted that he had provided few details of the specific sessions with the Complainant. The Panel also took into account the information provided by the Complainant, including her oral evidence given on the day. The Panel noted that she had been able to provide a detailed recollection of events but where she could not remember any particular point, she was open in saying so. It found the Complainant’s narrative to be consistent and credible.
With regard to allegation 1(a) the panel took into account the information from both the former Member and the Complainant and was satisfied, on balance, that Dr Spruce had made the comment alleged. The panel acknowledged that […] had found the comment inappropriate and unprofessional but also took into account that she had not considered it to be a specific invitation but rather that it was a hypothetical example provided by Dr Spruce during the sessions.
The panel considered that the comment may have been insensitive but accepted that there had been no underlying sexual intent in making it and that it had been intended as an example within the session. For this reason, the panel was not satisfied that, in making this comment, the former Member had failed to maintain the appropriate professional and/ or personal boundaries as set out in the allegation. The panel had to read the allegation as written and, having done so, it did not find allegation 1(a) proved.
With regard to allegation 1(b) the panel was satisfied, on balance, that Dr Spruce had made the comment alleged. However, having heard the Complainant’s explanation as to how this arose, it concluded that the comment had been said as part of an exercise within the therapeutic relationship, and was not intended as a personal comment The panel considered that it was a clumsy remark rather than an inappropriate one and for that reason it did not find that it amounted to a breach of either personal or professional boundaries as set out in the stem of the allegation. Consequently, it did not find allegation 1(b) proved.
In relation to allegation 1(c), the panel heard from the Complainant that, at the end of session 3, she had told Dr Spruce that she did not wish to shake hands as she had a cold but that he then pulled her towards him and hugged her, telling her not to worry about that. The Complainant stated that she had not wished to be hugged, found it inappropriate that he touched her but didn’t know how to say no to Dr Spruce at the time. She also told the panel that she had not considered that the hug was sexual.
The panel also took into account the written submissions from Dr Spruce where he stated that he had hugged clients on occasions but only with their consent. It noted, however, that he had not confirmed whether he had sought the Complainant’s specific consent on this occasion.
On the balance of the information provided, the panel was satisfied that the Complainant had made it clear that she did not wish for any physical contact at the end of session 3, and it was reasonable, therefore, to assume that this would have included a hug. On that basis the panel was satisfied that the former Member had hugged the Complainant against her wishes and that, in doing so he had failed to maintain appropriate personal and professional boundaries as set out in paragraph 33(a) of the 2018 Ethical Framework. However, the panel did not consider that the Member had sought to exploit the Complainant in any way and accordingly it did not find it amounted to a breach of paragraph 35 of the 2018 Ethical Framework.
Allegation 1:
1.1(a) and 1.1(b) were found not proved.
1.1(c) was found proved and amounted to a breach of paragraph 33(a) of the 2018 Ethical Framework.
Allegation 2
The Panel noted that Dr Spruce had not specifically responded to this allegation in his written response. The Complainant however provided a clear and consistent account of this episode and the context in which it arose and the panel found her account credible.
On the balance of probabilities, the panel was satisfied that Dr Spruce had asked the Complainant to demonstrate on herself where her former partner had touched her and had used the terms “front bottom” and “back bottom”. It was clear the Complainant had found this intrusive, embarrassing and uncomfortable. In response to questions from the panel, the Complainant said that she did not feel it necessary for her to demonstrate precisely where she had been touched and that she felt Dr Spruce’s approach to this to have been unprofessional. It found allegation 2.1 factually proved.
This was a highly personal and sensitive issue, and the panel was concerned that the former Member had not offered any explanation to […] at the time as to why he required her to demonstrate specifically where she had been touched and nor had he subsequently offered an explanation as to why this was therapeutically necessary. In the circumstances the panel did not consider the former Member’s action or approach to have been appropriate as it had not taken into account the client’s privacy or dignity. Accordingly, it was satisfied that Dr Spruce’s actions amounted to a breach of paragraph 21 of the 2018 Ethical Framework (EF).
It did not consider that there was evidence to show that the former Member was seeking to exploit the Complainant in any way and, accordingly, it did not amount to a breach of paragraph 35 of the EF.
Allegation 2:
2.1 was found proved and amounted to a breach of paragraph 21 of the 2018 Ethical Framework.
Allegation 3
The panel heard from the Complainant that the former Member had made a significant number of personal disclosures during the sessions including disclosures about his childhood and his relationship with his […], his […], his […], his education and employment, and his […] career, The Complainant submitted that a large part of each session was taken up with Dr Spruce’s personal disclosures rather than discussing her issues and concerns.
While the panel accepted that some personal disclosures can be therapeutically relevant, this has to be balanced with the need to make the client the primary focus of the counselling relationship. In this case the panel found the Complainant’s evidence as to the level of disclosure in this case to be credible and compelling and, on that basis, it considered that allegation 3.1.(a) was factually proved and that this amounted to a breach of paragraph 7 of the 2018 Ethical Framework.
Allegation 3.1.(b) related to the alleged inappropriate disclosure of confidential information regarding other clients. The Complainant said that Dr Spruce had discussed intimate personal details of a […] who worked […] that he had also used other clients as examples within the counselling sessions.
The panel noted that the Complainant had confirmed that, in his examples within the sessions, Dr Spruce had not disclosed any specific identifiable personal information regarding other clients. Further, while it appeared that Dr Spruce had made a number of disclosures about his […] worked within a […], this person was not a client and so was not covered by paragraph 55 of the Ethical Framework. In the circumstances the panel could not reasonably conclude that Dr Spruce had breached the confidentiality and privacy of any of his clients and, on that basis, it did not find allegation 3.1.(b) proved.
Allegation 3:
3.1.(a) was found proved and amounted to a breach of paragraph 7 of the 2018 Ethical Framework.
3.1(b) was found not proved
Decision
Accordingly, the Panel was unanimous in its decision that there had been a failure to comply with the Professional Standards. Specifically, that the former Member had acted contrary to paragraphs 7, 21, and 33(a) of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy 2018.
Sanction
The Panel reconvened on 2 September Year 3 to consider what, if any, sanction is appropriate. It noted that the former Member had not responded to the hearing findings and not provided submission in relation to sanction.
The Panel reminded itself of its findings above. It also considered the guidance within BACP Protocol on Sanctions (PR14) and reminded itself of its powers of sanction under Article 5.12 of the BACP Professional Conduct Procedure 2018.
The Panel considered whether the former Member’s previous responses contained any mitigating or aggravating factors. The Panel noted he made a limited response to the allegations and was unable to identify any evidence of acceptance of responsibility by the former Member for the conduct found proved, regret, recognition of the impact on the Complainant or insight into his failings. The Panel took into consideration that there was no evidence before it to indicate that the former Member had any previous professional conduct history. Nevertheless, in the absence of insight and learning, the Panel considered there to be a risk of repetition of the former Member’s failings.
The Panel decided that it was necessary, appropriate and proportionate to require the former Member to provide the BACP with the following within 3 months of the date of this letter:
1. Evidence of the completion of 12 hours of continuous professional development (CPD) relating to maintenance of professional boundaries (physical in particular) and the appropriateness (or otherwise) of personal disclosures.
2. After completing the CPD, a personal statement demonstrating specific changes/improvements in the Member’s practice that:
a. reflects on what went wrong with the Complainant and shows acceptance of responsibility for what the Panel found went wrong, with particular emphasis on the maintenance of professional boundaries (physical in particular), the appropriateness (or otherwise) of personal disclosures and respecting clients’ privacy and dignity;
b. demonstrates understanding of the harm that can be caused by failing to maintain appropriate boundaries and by making inappropriate personal disclosures;
c. recognises the impact of his conduct on the Complainant;
d. details what he has learned and what he has changed to prevent repetition of what went wrong.
3. After completing the CPD and personal statement, a genuine and sincere letter of apology addressed to the Complainant, reflecting on what went wrong in her case, and acknowledging the harm these failings caused.
The BACP Registrar defines CPD as:
‘Any 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’
(Where ellipses [ . . . ] are displayed, they indicate an omission of text)