January 2025: AJ, Reference No 00754011, Registrant ID 172581
January 2025: Andrew Jordan, Reference No 00754011, Registrant ID 172581
Allegations
1.1 On 19 January Year 1, the Member was convicted of an offence of threatening to disclose private sexual photographs with intent to cause distress, contrary to s33 Criminal Justice Act 2015, for which he was sentenced to a Community Order.
1.2 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: 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.
Admissions
At the outset of the hearing, the Clerk read out the allegations and the Member confirmed that he admitted allegations 1.1 and 1.2. He also admitted professional misconduct.
Evidence before the Panel
In comings to its decision the Panel carefully considered the following:
• The decision of the Investigation and Assessment Committee of 4 September Year 1.
• The Certificate of Conviction dated 19 January Year 1 from […]
• The bundle produced by BACP (37 pages)
• The bundle produced by the Member including:
o formal response and witness statement from the Member
o References
o Testimonials and character references
• The relevant Ethical Framework.
• The Professional Conduct Procedure 2018.
Decision on Facts
The Member self-referred on 24 January Year 1 following his conviction and sentencing as set out in the allegation. He admitted both allegations and he admitted professional misconduct.
Having fully considered matters, the Panel accepted the admissions by the Member and, given that the Certificate of Conviction is conclusive evidence, it found the allegations proved and found professional misconduct as alleged.
Submissions on Sanction
The Panel next received written submissions from […] on behalf of the Member as to sanction. It also heard oral submissions from […] and […] on the issue on what sanction was appropriate and proportionate in this case.
[…] reminded the Panel of the purpose of sanction and need for proportionality and consideration of the public interest. He referred the Panel to the guidance from BACP and to the importance of public protection. He submitted that the allegation was of sexual misconduct and it was of a nature that would normally require, at least, the imposition of a sanction of suspension and to impose a lesser sanction will require careful reasoning.
[…] submitted that the Panel must start with the lowest sanction and work upwards, balancing the mitigating factors such as insight and the early guilty plea by the Member. He submitted that the Panel must not go behind the conviction. […] submitted that the conviction was serious but the Panel must be mindful that there is a spectrum of sexual misconduct.
[…], for the Member, referred to her written submissions. She submitted that the Member had demonstrated insight and was working on self-improvement. He was engaging in therapy and was seeking to make himself professionally robust.
[…] referred to the relevant sanctions guidance and to case law. She submitted as regards risk, that the Member had good insight and he has fully accepted his misconduct. He has worked hard since the conduct to improve his practice and he has a good support structure in place to improve his professional practice. He has a supervisor in the BACP setting and also in his private practice. She referred the Panel to the testimonials and references supporting the Member. She submitted that the case law was clear that withdrawal of membership was not necessary in light of the conviction.
[…] reminded the Panel that it was not its function to punish the Member, the court had done so. She submitted that the Member did not seek to diminish the seriousness of the misconduct but that there was a spectrum of sexual misconduct and this conviction might sit between lawful pornography in the workplace and the possession of indecent images of children.
[…] advised that the restraining order imposed on the Member was an ancillary order made by the court at the time of the conviction and has some months to run. She submitted that such an order was not unusual and did not indicate any heightened risk.
[…] submitted that there were mitigating factors including the Member’s insight as demonstrated in his recent witness statement; it was out of character; he has an unblemished career of […] years. She advised that the Member cannot continue at this stage with his […] and he will not, therefore, return to his training in […] in any event until Autumn Year 3 if he remains on the BACP register.
[…] submitted that the proper test for public interest was the right minded and informed member of the public. She told the Panel that the sentence […] was at the lower end of gravity for the conviction. She submitted that the Panel should consider requiring further reflection and CPD training from the Member, as well as enhanced supervision. She advised the Member was willing to engage in any such order. She urged the Panel not to impose suspension and submitted that it must weigh the aggravating and mitigating factors and be mindful that the Member had already been suspended for over one year. She submitted that any period of suspension that might be imposed should be short, as a longer period would be punitive.
As to publication, […] reminded the Panel the Community Order was now […] and she submitted that publication of his convictions would itself amount to a sanction.
Decision on sanction
The Panel accepted the legal advice from the Clerk who reminded it of the sanctions guidance issued by BACP and the need for proportionality and consideration of the public interest. He reminded the Panel that the purpose of a sanction was not to punish the Member but to protect the public and the wider public interest in maintaining confidence in the profession.
The Panel considered all the evidence. It found the conviction was serious, but found it was at the lower end of the spectrum of sexual misconduct. The Member did not distribute any images, there was no evidence of actual harm caused and there was no physical contact.
The Panel considered whether there were any mitigating or aggravating features. The Panel found the following mitigating features:-
• The conduct was not in the course of his professional role
• Good insight demonstrated by the Member
• He has shown remorse
• It was an isolated incident
• He has a previously unblemished career
The Panel did not find any aggravating features.
The Panel was mindful that the Member has already been suspended from membership of the BACP , pending this final hearing, since September Year 1. Whilst the Panel was aware that there is a […], that is not part of the allegation found proved and is not part of the Certificate of Conviction produced to the Panel.
The Member has shown good insight and reflection into his misconduct. He has taken active steps to improve and remedy his practice and to understand his actions. He entered an early guilty plea, and there is no evidence that he has ever sought to deflect blame or to avoid or limit his culpability. There are positive and supportive testimonials and references for the Member that raise no concerns. In all these circumstances, the Panel found that the Member is highly unlikely to repeat his misconduct.
Given the good insight shown by the Member, and the consequent low risk of repetition of the misconduct, the Panel found that there was not a public protection component in this case. It concluded that on public protection grounds there was not a need to impose a sanction. The Panel found this case engaged the wider public interest, and the importance of maintaining public confidence in the profession and promoting proper professional standards and conduct.
The Panel considered the sanctions available to it and was mindful of the BACP guidance. It started at the lowest end, that is taking no action.
The Panel decided that the allegations were too serious to take no action. To do so would not send the appropriate message to the public or the profession that this conduct is totally unacceptable. Imposing no sanction would undermine public confidence in the profession and would fail to uphold proper professional standards.
Apology is not available in this case given there is no complainant as this was a self-referral by the Member. The Member has reflected and shown insight and he is meaningfully engaging with this process, his profession and with supervision. The Panel was mindful that there are no concerns about his professional abilities and competency, and so further training is not appropriate or required.
The Panel was mindful of the importance of the public interest. It found that a well informed and reasonable member of the public would appreciate that the Member has been convicted and punished by the courts and he has served his sentence. They would also know that the Member has already been suspended by the BACP since September Year 1 pending this final hearing. They would know that the Member has demonstrated good insight and taken positive steps to remedy and to improve his professional practice.
It is not the role of the Panel to punish the Member. It decided that a reasonable Member of the public would not expect that the Panel is required to impose a further period of suspension in order to maintain confidence in the profession and uphold proper standards. The Panel found that to do so would serve no useful purpose and would go further than was necessary. The Panel concluded that suspension of membership would not be proportionate in the circumstances of this case and would be punitive.
The Panel accordingly decided, in light of the good insight shown and the reflection already undertaken by the Member, and the interim suspension order of one year already served by the Member, that the appropriate and proportionate sanction is as follows:-
The Member is required to provide a detailed written reflection on the impact of the misconduct on potential and actual clients, on the reputation of the profession and the reputation on the regulator, the BACP. This is to be completed within one month of receiving the full written decision of the Panel.
(Where ellipses [ . . . ] are displayed, they indicate an omission of text)