Professional Conduct notice / CK

June 2026: Christopher Kidd, Membership Number 00800624, Registrant ID 373975

Allegations

In accepting this complaint, the Committee was concerned that the allegations made in the complaint suggest a failure to comply with the Professional Standards as follows:

Allegation 1

1.1. The Member entered into a relationship with the Referrer, which was professionally inappropriate, in that:

a) He engaged in sexual conversations with her during the therapeutic relationship, which were not clinically justified; and/or
b) He engaged in a physical relationship with the Referrer within a very short period following the ending of the therapeutic relationship; and/or
c) He encouraged her to conceal the relationship by:
i. warning her of the consequences for him if she did not do so; and/or
ii. requesting her to delete messages or pictures exchanged between them; and/or
d) He pressurised her by giving her a deadline to move in with him.

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: 34 (We will not have sexual relationships with or behave sexually towards our clients, supervisees or trainees) and/or 35 (We will not exploit or abuse our clients in any way: financially, emotionally, physically, sexually or spiritually) and/or 37 (We will avoid continuing or resuming any relationships with former clients that could harm the client or damage any benefits from the therapeutic work undertaken. We recognise that conflicts of interest and issues of power or dependence may continue after our working relationship with a client, supervisee or trainee has formally ended. a) We will exercise caution before entering into personal or business relationships with former clients; and/or b) We will avoid sexual or intimate relationships with former clients or people close to them. Exceptionally, such a relationship will only be permissible following careful consideration in supervision and, whenever possible, following discussion with experienced colleagues or others concerned about the integrity of the counselling professions, when:

• enough time has elapsed, or the circumstances of the people concerned have sufficiently changed to establish a distinction between the former and proposed new relationship
• any therapeutic dynamics from the former relationship have been sufficiently resolved to enable beginning a different type of relationship. (This may not be possible with some clients or inappropriate to some therapeutic ways of working.)
• an equivalent service to the one provided by the practitioner is available to the former client, should this be wanted in future
• the practitioner has taken demonstrable care in ensuring that the new relationship has integrity and is not exploitative; and/or
• We will be professionally accountable if the relationship becomes detrimental to the former client or damages the standing of the profession.

1.3 Allegations 1.1 a. and/or b. and/or c. and/or d. amount to professional misconduct as defined in the Professional Conduct Procedure.

Allegation 2

2.1 The Member breached client confidentiality by disclosing to the Referrer emails received from other clients and/or former clients.

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: 55a (We will protect the confidentiality and privacy of clients by: actively protecting information about clients from unauthorised access or disclosure).

2.3 Allegation 2.1 amounts to professional misconduct as defined in the Professional Conduct Procedure.

Allegation 3

3.1 The Member failed to contract with the Referrer adequately or at all in that he:

a) Did not provide a contract at the commencement of the therapeutic relationship
detailing the terms upon which his services would be provided; and/or
b) Did not recontract with the Referrer to reflect the changes which occurred in the
therapeutic relationship.

3.2 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular acting in a way which was inconsistent with the following paragraphs of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy 2018: 31 (We will give careful consideration to how we reach agreement with clients and will contract with them about the terms on which our services will be provided. Attention will be given to: a) reaching an agreement or contract that takes account of each client’s expressed needs and choices so far as possible; and/or b. communicating terms and conditions of the agreement or contract in ways easily understood by the client and appropriate to their context; and/or e. keeping a record of what has been agreed and of any changes or clarifications when they occur).

Admissions by the Member

1. The Member admitted the entire allegation except for 1.1 a and 1.1 c(i), 1c(ii) and 1.1 d which he denied. The Panel accepted those admissions and found those parts of the allegation proved.

Opening Statements

2. […] opened the case and acknowledged the admissions made. He submitted that the admissions made indicated there was a therapeutic relationship, but no contract was entered into. Sessions took place between June–November 2020. He submitted it is alleged that in September 2020 there was an escalation in the sexually charged conversations between the Member and the Complainant. The Complainant states she was excited and encouraged by the Member and conversations were sexualised. Images and texts of an intimate and sexual nature were exchanged, and it is alleged the Member asked the Complainant to keep them secret. […] stated that the Member has accepted that a physical, a sexual relationship commenced very shortly after the end of the therapeutic relationship.

3. […] advised the Panel that he would be focussing on those parts of the allegation that had been denied. Misconduct was a matter for the Panel to consider once it had made findings of fact. The Panel heard from one witness, the Complainant, […].

4. The Member told the Panel that he had remorse and regret, and he apologised to the BACP and to the Complainant for his admitted actions. He said that his actions fell far below the standards to be expected and said he fully accepted responsibility for the trust he had breached. He said he welcomed any sanction that may follow.

The Evidence – The Complainant

5. The Complainant affirmed, gave evidence and formally adopted her written witness statement. She told the Panel that in September 2020 the sessions with the Member became more “friendly” and “flirtatious.” The Member knew that her partner had moved out around this time and he had given her advice to remove her partner’s belongings and change the locks. She said that the Member seemed to take everything she said back to sex and that there was an attraction between them.

6. The Complainant said that she had not asked for therapy with the Member and she had first made contact with him to support a colleague in therapy. She had just broken down in her discussions with him and the Member had then asked that she undertake therapy. In discussions about her dreams there would often be references to sex. The Complainant said that the Member had told her that she was “pretty” and that her unconscious was "open and available to him". Her concerns were not about sex but she said that the Member would bring up sexual connotations and references. She said she had felt an element of feeling he thought she was “special” as she had trusted his instincts over her own. She said that she knew it was wrong but she did not feel able to end the therapy.

7. In her written statement, she stated that the Member would often relate words or dreams back to something sexual. She remembered one dream was about her not falling down a hole and instead going up a lift. The Member said that was sexual, the hole being female and the lift being male. The Member had told her that the lift was phallic and that represented male genitalia. Several dreams were discussed in therapy sessions and the Member said to her that they were sexual.

8. The Complainant said that the Member frequently messaged her and described it as “quite intense.” She said she had wanted to bring the sessions to an end. The Member had then said they could have an affair but that she had to write a positive testimonial for him and delete all the messages and pictures sent.

9. The Complainant said in her statement that she met with the Member in person in November 2020 when he came to her house, but they had also met in one live therapy session. She believed that this was approximately two weeks after the therapy sessions ended, her last session being 3 November 2020. She said that they then had an affair as the Member was married. It was secret and she did not tell anybody as she was so scared. The Member had told her that “it would be his life over and that it would cost him his career, family, wife and kids” so she did not tell anyone. She said that the Member would come round to her house and they would also meet in public, but not locally.

10. The Complainant said that she was very anxious about the Member coming to her house. She told the Member that he was making her anxious and the Member said that if anyone questioned it, he would say we were continuing to work on my “daddy issues”. She said that she had made an attempt to end the sexual relationship after the Christmas period, around the end of December 2020 or beginning of January 2021. She stated that it was making her too anxious; it was a big secret and it was wrong, she could not handle it and she was terrified that he would get caught. The Member agreed to taking a break, he called it a "hiatus" and had said to her that he would not contact her unless she contacted him first. He then told her that he was not coping and although she felt he was putting his interests first, they had resumed their relationship.

11. The Complainant stated that in November 2021, around the time of the Member's birthday, the Member talked about his self-worth and about how he deserved for her to be living with him. He stated to her that "I have more self-worth than to wake up on my own on my birthday". She said that the Member gave her a deadline for her to move in with him, a deadline near Christmas 2021. He had said that she was “slow to act” and that she was someone that has an idea and does not act on it and he told her to be brave. She said that this had been a huge deal to her, as it had meant moving her children and changing their schools. However, she had done it and said she had “rushed it”. She said she had the kids in mind and they had been through a lot with their father moving out, but she had thought that moving in with a therapist would be good for them. She and her children then moved into the Member's home on Christmas eve 2021.

Cross Examination

12. The Panel and Clerk received questions from the Member that he sought to ask the Complainant. After due consideration, and with Rule 5.6l in mind, being the rule that prevents a Member from directly questioning the Complainant in cases of a sexual nature, these questions were put to the Member by the Clerk.

13. The Complainant said she did not raise sexual content in sessions and she denied having discussed at any length her father or stepbrother at sessions. She said she deleted only those messages the Member had asked her delete in the last therapy sessions when he had suggested several options. She said she did not involve estate agents in the house move, and she accepted that the Member did encourage her to take professional advice about dealing with her ex-partner. She stated that, with hindsight, she wished she had involved a third party, but she did not want to jeopardise the relationship. On reflection, she said that she now thinks that would have been a good step but at the time she did not want people to judge her. She said the message about being “excited” was a reference to her partner moving out not about her moving in with the Member. The Complainant said that she had entered into a romantic relationship with the Member and she had never denied sending him a card when they moved in together.

14. In response to Panel questions, the Complainant said the videos in evidence from both her and the Member had not been deleted as they took place when they were openly in a relationship. She accepted that she had written the Member a testimonial but had not submitted it in her evidence. She said that she understood some of the methodology in the therapy she had with the Member with particular reference to Freudian theory, “daddy issues” and sexual elements, but said that the sexual elements dominated more than they needed to. She said that she felt some of the Member’s conduct had an element of coercion. She said she felt pressurised by the Member making comments about his self-worth and saying she was slow to act. She accepted that she had been sexually attracted to the Member towards the end of therapy and said that it felt she was able to be open with him about her life and her grief had lifted. However, she did not think she had sexualised the therapy conversations.

15. In response to Panel questions, the Member provided further questions to be asked of the Complainant. The Panel considered that these were, save for two questions, fair and appropriate to put to the Complainant in order to fairly test her evidence. She accepted that, whilst there were some shared decisions with the Member, there had been an imbalance in the relationship as she was the client. She said that she had felt manipulated and her discussions in therapy had been used by the Member to have sexual conversations.

16. […] closed the case for the BACP.

Application to Receive Late Evidence – The Testimonial

17. The Member sought to submit the testimonial about him that the Complainant had prepared on his request in 2020. He said that the Complainant had referred to it in her witness statement, but she had not produced it, and it seemed fair to allow the Panel to see it.

18. […] opposed the application to receive the testimonial stating that it was not relevant to the issues before the Panel. He referred to the BACP Protocol on Late/New Evidence. He submitted that there is no dispute that the Complainant had produced a testimonial, but that its content was not relevant at this stage, as no issue turned on the content. He accepted that it may be relevant evidence at a later stage as to mitigation.

19. The Panel accepted legal advice from the Clerk about fairness and the relevance of evidence, and he referred to the Protocol. The Panel considered the content of the testimonial and the timing of it. It decided that the testimonial provided useful and relevant context to the evidence it has heard from the Complainant, who refers to it in her witness statement. The Panel considered that, in the round, it was relevant to the circumstances of the case and in the exercise of assessing all the evidence on the facts.

20. The Panel therefore decided that it was fair and relevant to admit the testimonial. It will assess and decide what weight to attach to it, if any, in due course when assessing all the evidence on the facts.

Day 2 - 1 July 2025 Adjournment

21. The Panel received an email from the Member advising he was unwell, as was his supporter, and neither was able to attend the hearing that morning. […] submitted that the Member is due to give evidence and that would take some time, involving cross examination, Panel questions, closing submissions and legal advice. He submitted that unless the Member’s evidence is started by around 12.30 there would not be time to complete the case today. He reminded the Panel that the Member was not legally represented and fairness was essential. He said he would not oppose an adjournment.

22. The Panel received legal advice from the Clerk on adjournment, and it was referred to Protocol 12 on adjournment. He stressed fairness to both parties. The Panel was concerned that the Member must be able to effectively participate in this hearing and that he is about to give evidence and be cross examined on serious allegations. His supporter is also unwell and not able to attend. The Panel gave further time to the Member to update them as to his health and his supporter and subsequently received a further email from him stating that he remained unwell and could not attend today.

23. Accordingly, the Panel was of the view that they could not proceed further today. The Panel therefore decided to adjourn the hearing.

Resumed Hearing 3 September 2025 - Day 3

The Member’s Evidence

24. The Member took the affirmation and told the Panel about his meetings with the Complainant. The Member said that he had breached professional boundaries, but that Covid and virtual meetings had contributed to him confusing boundaries and he had found that difficult.

25. The Member said that he recalled the sessions with the Complainant, who had been upset initially but had become more confident. He said she had drawn him into her dreams and he now recognised that he was falling into a “shared fantasy”. He said sex was not always a topic and that many topics were discussed. He said that sex rarely arose, and when it did it was raised by the Complainant. He said he had not described her as pretty or make any observations about her appearance. He denied making any comment about someone being gay and said that was discriminatory and inappropriate.

26. The Member accepted that the roles had become blurred and this was contributed to by Covid and by lock-down. At times the meetings were more like coaching but now he saw that he had been struggling, leading to “a catastrophic boundary failure” which he regrets.

27. The Member said that he had developed trust and empathy with the Complainant but that he did not flirt with her. He said she had raised no concerns about this with him or with others. The Member said that he had explained clearly to the Complainant what was happening to her and that he had encouraged reflection and reframing. He said that there were no discussions about sex and he denied that any sexual connotations or analogies were made by him. The Complainant mentioned dreams but that he had not interpreted them as sexual.

28. The Member said that he did not often message the Complainant and that there was no evidence of this. He said she had always kept messages and as none were available, they did not exist.

29. Towards the end of the therapeutic relationship, the Member said that the Complainant had said to him that she was attracted to him and that she wanted to end the therapeutic relationship. He said he was taken aback and had felt they had good empathy. After the sessions ended, she had invited him to her home and the relationship had become physical, what he called “a catastrophic failure”.

30. The Member said that he did not seek to conceal the relationship and he had discussed how to make the relationship viable. They had both shared their relationship with friends and family, but he felt that had been misguided. He said that he had not asked the Complainant to delete messages and he did not want to make the relationship covert. He said that he never asked the Complainant to delete messages, and he had trusted her when she said she wanted the best for him. He said that the Complainant had offered the testimonial for him, and later she had become a trusted member of staff at his business.

31. The Member said that no pressure was applied to the Complainant, and they had together naturally reached the decision to move house. She had liaised with estate agents and visited properties together and she had signed contracts. He said it was a happy time. The decisions were all joint decisions and were happily made, and she had never expressed reluctance. He said he had further evidence for mitigation at a later stage.

32. After the loss of their baby, he said he was overwhelmed and the relationship fell apart. They were both grieving. He told the Panel that he had not been coercive or manipulative and those accusations by the Complainant were supported by no evidence. He said that he had an exemplary career and no history of complaints about his behaviour. He said he understood her anger and he accepted his wrongdoing. He said he genuinely believed he had been in a loving relationship with the Complainant until he received the BACP complaint three years later.

Cross Examination of the Member

33. Under cross examination, the Member said that he was aware at the outset of the Complainant’s personal and professional difficulties. In addition, she was grieving the loss of her mother, her relationship was breaking down and there was the Covid pandemic. He said the issue were very broad. He said he did not know exactly when the Complainant’s partner moved out, but that it was after the therapeutic relationship with him had commenced. He denied that he had provided advice to the Complainant about ending her relationship with her current partner. He denied telling her to pack his things and change the locks.

34. During the therapeutic relationship, the Member said that it had been entirely professional until the very end and he denied that he had ever been flirtatious with the Complainant. He said he gave the Complainant “the floor” to raise what she wanted, and said that he did not encourage anything, and had allowed her to speak freely. He said he did not interpret her dreams, but he would ask her what she thought. He denied he had said that her unconscious was “open and available” to him and he said he made no reference to bananas, things being phallic or to pubic hair.

35. The Member recalled the reference by her to a dream in which they were both naked. He denied stating her references were sexual and he denied interpreting her dreams. He recalled the dream about the stormy weather, but not that he had said it was a drama about a man having an affair. He could not remember the detail but said he would not silence a client. He denied that he had said a dream about a lift was sexual and was phallic.

36. The Member said he had himself sought support in therapy about the end of the relationship and that he was clear about what he said, and not said, in the sessions with the Complainant.

37. The Member said he recalled the Complainant taking a personality test and they had discussed her career aspirations. He denied saying in that context that she was pretty and denied that he told her she “lights up a room”. He had not seen her in a room at the point as the sessions were virtual. He said he may have reflected that observation back to her as it was an empathetic therapy technique. He did recall a discussion about transference and counter transference as the Complainant was doing a psychotherapy course, and she had wanted to learn about it. He had sent her some literature after the therapeutic relationship ended. He denied it meant there was an attraction.

38. The Member said that the Complainant at the end of the therapeutic relationship told him she was “good to go” and he was taken aback. He said that the therapeutic relationship ended as she asked for it to end and she had wanted to discuss working together. He said he catastrophically let the boundaries go and he had admitted that. He denied anything sexual during the therapeutic relationship. When they met at her house, he was open to a sexual relationship and he said it was not said as such, “it was an event”.

39. The Member denied discussing at that time BACP time limits on forming relationships with former clients. He said that they had told her manager about the relationship and that had involved discussions about regulations. He said he had been reluctant to take the relationship further, and it had been the wrong thing to do.

40. The Member denied sending sexualised messages to the Complainant as soon as the therapeutic relationship ended. He said the physical relationship commenced in the October and he did not immediately disclose that to […]. He accepted that the physical relationship took place very shortly after the end of the therapeutic relationship. He did not recall mentioning this at supervision and said that it was very unlikely that he did so. He reiterated that his failure had been “catastrophic” and that he had “lost his mind” for which he apologised. The Complainant had assured him that she had recovered from the breakdown of her previous relationship and said there was no exploitation of the situation. He accepted that there was a power imbalance, that he had made the choices and he took responsibility for it.

41. The Member said that his professional standing was on the line, but he did not recall discussing that exactly with the Complainant, although the implications were discussed over a period of time. He did not recall saying his life would be over, but they had discussed over many conversations how to make the relationship viable in the long term. He denied mentioning his family and kids in any menacing way, but the impact on them was discussed between them. He denied he had ever mentioned her having “daddy issues.” He denied asking the Complainant to conceal the relationship and he denied that he had placed conditions on her about deleting messages and pictures they had sent each other. He said that no messages or pictures were sent between them during the therapeutic relationship.

42. The Member denied any conversation with the Complainant on his birthday about her moving in. He said moving in was discussed by them many times over a long period. He had not said she was a slow decision maker, and he denied that he had ever set a deadline for her to move in with her.

43. The Member accepted that he had shared confidential information about another three clients with the Complainant and there had been no therapeutic purpose. He accepted that he had forwarded emails from three other clients to the Complainant. He added it was a catastrophic breach and should never have happened. He said he recalled that he may have later told two of the three clients that there had been a breach. He realised before the complaint was made to the BACP that this was a big mistake. The Member said he thinks he did it “to offer reassurance”. He accepted that those clients would find his conduct unacceptable, and they would feel “let down” and less trusting of the profession.

Panel Questions

44. The Member said he was careful not to introduce family into the therapy discussions, but that he felt his head was not in the right place at the time. He said he had a supervisor, but Covid had made it difficult and in hindsight he had not accessed the support he had needed. He said the issues raised in therapy were more about power than sex. When the Complainant had said she was “good to go” he said that had meant she was ready to have a sexual relationship. He said that came “out of the blue.”

45. The Member said that he recalled one dream she had told him about that he thought was about power, and he had encouraged her to reflect on the dream. The Member said he now considers that the Complainant had invited him to her house to seduce him, but at the time he thought it was about business. He added that the Complainant had become a trusted colleague and a co-director at his company.

Closing Submissions

46. […] for the BACP submitted that the burden of proof is on the BACP on the balance of probabilities. She referred to the relevant case law on assessing evidence and she reminded the Panel of the admissions made by the Member and the documentary evidence. She submitted that the Complainant’s evidence was consistent and that considerable weight should be given to her evidence. […] submitted that the Member had made admissions and he had set out the difficulties he had faced and the context, and as a result his evidence may not be reliable.

47. […] invited the Panel to accept the Complainant’s evidence about the dreams and the Member’s sexual interpretation. She submitted that the Complainant had been clear and specific in her evidence, and she invited the Panel to accept the Complainant’s evidence about each part of Allegations 1 and 2, including about the sexualised comments made by the Member, saying she was pretty and imposing deadlines and conditions on her. The Member had been in a position of power.

48. […] submitted that the Complainant’s evidence was credible and reliable. She submitted that therapeutic relationship may have been used to flirt with the Complainant and that the Member had admitted serious boundary breaches. She submitted that there had been serious breaches of the professional standards as alleged, both as to professional boundaries and client confidentiality.

49. […] reminded the Panel that allegation 3 is admitted. She reminded the Panel of the definition of professional misconduct, as defined by the BACP, and referred the Panel to the 2018 Ethical Framework. She also referred to the relevant case law on breaching professional standards and seriousness.

50. The Member apologised and expressed regret. He said he wanted to learn and grow and take responsibility. He said that he had told the truth and that the Complainant had accepted in her evidence that she should have made her concerns clear to him and others. He thought he had been in a loving relationship. He said she had given a retrospective narrative of the events at the time, but he accepted his conduct. He denied that there was any sexual conduct during the therapeutic relationship to arouse or gratify either party. He said that the sessions had been professional and he had not encouraged sexualised language. He said that there was no evidence about the messages alleged and no independent evidence of those messages. He said that the Complainant had no evidence about that or evidence that she had expressed concerns about pressure to anyone at the time, although she had ample opportunity to do so. He accepted that he had made massive errors of judgement and wanted to speak the truth.

Decision

51. The Panel accepted the advice of the Clerk. He reminded it that the burden of proof rests on the BACP, and that the Member need prove nothing. The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. He referred it to the legal definition of “sexual” in the section 78 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, and to the BACP definition in the glossary to the Ethical Framework. He reminded the Panel of the BACP’s definition of professional misconduct and of the need to carefully consider the seriousness of any breaches of the Ethical Framework.

52. The Panel was mindful that the Member has admitted allegations 1.1 b, 1.2, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3.1 a, 3.1 b and 3.2 and breach of the Ethical Framework.

53. The Member admitted allegation 1.1 b, that is he engaged in a physical relationship with the Referrer (Complainant) within a very short period following the ending of the therapeutic relationship and that was professionally inappropriate.

54. The Panel considered and assessed the evidence in the round, and it sought where it could to cross reference relevant documentary evidence. The Panel has weighed all the oral and documentary evidence, and it has considered consistency, plausibility, probabilities, credibility and reliability. The Panel noted that there was a stark difference in much of the evidence from the Member and Complainant.

55. The complaint to the BACP was made on 8 October 2023 and on 18 December 2024 the Complainant provided a written statement to the BACP. The Complainant and Member started their relationship around November 2020 and moved in together in December 2021. Their relationship ended around February 2023.

Allegation 1.1a – Not proved

1.1 The Member entered into a relationship with the Referrer, which was professionally inappropriate, in that:
a. He engaged in sexual conversations with her during the therapeutic relationship, which were not clinically justified;

56. The Member has admitted that there was a relationship, having admitted allegation 1.1b. The Panel was mindful of the definition of sexual and what a reasonable person would consider was sexual in the context and with intention considered. The Panel was mindful that at times a therapist will legitimately and properly require to deal in therapy with sexual matters, there will be clinically justified discussions about sexual matters.

57. The Panel found that the dreams interpretations referred to in the evidence of the Complainant could potentially be justified as part of the therapy. The Member was adamant that he there was no discussion of most of the dreams the Complainant referred to in some detail in her evidence. She set out a number of dreams that she said the Member sexualised in their therapy sessions. The Member denied that non-clinically justified sexual conversations ever took place and he denied the discussions took place about the dreams the Complainant described in her evidence.

58. The Panel found that there was a distinct difference in the evidence from each party about the therapy sessions. The Panel found that the evidence from both parties about this allegation was credible and plausible. Whatever the discussions at therapy may have been, and the details are not clear from the evidence, the Panel was of the view that there can be clinical justification for sexual matters to be discussed in therapy, particularly when there is dream interpretation and given the Member’s background in psychoanalysis.

59. In these circumstances, the Panel found that there was a lack of sufficient, cogent or credible evidence before it to find it more likely than not that there were sexual conversations during the therapeutic relationship that were not clinically justified. This is found not proved.

Allegation 1.1c (i) & (ii) – Proved

He encouraged her to conceal the relationship by:
i. warning her of the consequences for him if she did not do so; and/or
ii. requesting her to delete messages or pictures exchanged between them;

60. 1.1c (i) - The Member denied this allegation. He said in evidence that he and the Complainant had various discussions over time about moving in together and making their relationship work. He said he had consulted with […] about the relationship and he had spoken to friends and family about making the relationship “viable”. He said that he did not conceal the affair, but he accepted that he did not disclose the relationship to his supervisor until July 2021. The Complainant said she was “scared” as they were having an affair and she did not tell anyone. She was clear in her evidence that she had felt encouraged to conceal by the Member, and she set out in her evidence the warning and requests made by him, as alleged. She described the relationship as an “affair” and she was aware the Member was married with children.

61. The evidence indicated that the relationship commenced around November 2020 and ended in February 2023. However, the Panel found that analysis of the evidence was made difficult by the absence of a clear timeline. The Panel did not have evidence that placed the evidence of any discussions in a chronology, and there was a lack of evidence about what period each party was referring to in giving their evidence on this allegation. The Panel found that there was, by definition, a level of concealment of the relationship by both parties. In the context and circumstances of the relationship, the Panel found that there was likely a mutual interest by both parties to keep the relationship concealed, at least in the early stages.

62. The Panel accepted the Member’s evidence as plausible that various discussions had taken place between them about concealment and about the impact of the relationship on the Member’s wife, children and career. The Panel also found that the Complainant’s account of what she heard from the Member in their discussions was plausible and credible. The two versions are not mutually incompatible. This was an evolving situation.

63. The Panel was mindful of the stem of this allegation, which states: “encouraged her to conceal…”. The Panel found, on balance, that it was plausible and credible that in the context and circumstances of those discussions, where the Member accepted that he had spoken about the impact on his life, and his wife and family, that those discussions were an encouragement by the Member to the Complainant to conceal the relationship and were a warning to her of the consequences for the Member. This is proved.

64. 1.1.c (ii) – The Complainant was clear in her live evidence and in her witness statement that: “he said there is a "third way", we can continue contact outside of the therapy, but he gave me two conditions. The first condition was that I write a testimonial for him. The second condition was that I delete every message or picture he sent me.” She provided the testimonial in November 2020. She told the Panel that she had subsequently deleted all her messages, but not the emails about the breach of confidentiality. The Member denied this and stated that there were no messages and pictures to delete and said that he had not asked the Complainant to do so or asked for the testimonial.

65. The Panel found that taking account of the context and circumstances of the relationship, that the Complainant’s evidence was more plausible and credible. Whilst the relationship was concealed until July 2021, the Panel found it was more likely than not that the Member had encouraged the Complainant to conceal it by requesting her to delete the messages and pictures they had exchanged. That makes sense in the context of the concealment. This is proved

Allegation 1.1d – Not proved

1.1 d. - He pressurised her by giving her a deadline to move in with him

66. 1.1d – The Member denies this. The Complainant stated in her witness statement that: “In November 2021, around the time of the Member's birthday, he talked about his self-worth and about how he deserved for me to be living with him. He stated, "I have more self-worth than to wake up on my own on my birthday". He gave me a deadline for me to move in with him; the deadline was sometime near Christmas 2021. He said I was slow and that I was someone that has an idea and does not act on it.”

67. The Panel also considered the card sent by the Complainant to the Member, which she accepted she had sent to him, where she says, “you kissed my soul and then my lips and I‘ve been home ever since”. In the video she states she is excited about her future life with the Member and she calls him her “lover.” The Panel found that these were loving and flirtatious messages that do not suggest any pressure was being applied to the Complainant by the Member. The Complainant’s evidence was contradictory in this respect. The parties did move in together in December 2021, a year after the relationship commenced.

68. The Panel was mindful of the word alleged - “pressurised”. It found that there was a lack of evidence of pressure being applied to the contrary much of the evidence indicated that the Complainant was excited and positive about moving in with the Member. This is not proved.

Misconduct

69. The Panel exercised its own professional judgment when next considering whether the facts found proved amount to professional misconduct as defined by the BACP as follows:

“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”

70. 1.1b - The Panel found that the conduct admitted in allegation 1.1b was a clear breach of paragraph 37 of the Ethical Framework. The Panel noted in particular from the Member’s evidence that he had deliberately avoided disclosing the relationship to his supervisor. The Member entered into the relationship knowing that it was a fundamental breach of his core professional standards, and in doing so he placed the Complainant at risk of harm and undermined public confidence in the profession. The Member in entering into the physical relationship made a deliberate choice, and that was a serious breach of a core professional standard.

71. Accordingly, the Panel found that the facts found proved in 1.1b. were a serious breach of paragraph 37 and were of sufficient seriousness that a period of suspension of membership or withdrawal of membership may be warranted and so amounted to professional misconduct.

72. 1.1c(i) & (ii) – The Panel found that the encouragement to conceal found proved was a misuse of the significant power imbalance in the relationship, a power imbalance known and accepted by the Member. This conduct found proved is a breach of paragraph 37 of the Ethical Framework.

73. The Panel considered the definition of professional misconduct. It was mindful of its findings as a whole regarding the relationship and the Members conduct. It concluded that the findings on this part of the allegation were part of that wider conduct and could not properly or fairly be considered in isolation. The Panel concluded that the breach of paragraph 37 in respect of 1c(i) and 1c(ii) was serious and it amounted to professional misconduct.

Allegation 2 – Proved

2.1 The Member breached client confidentiality by disclosing to the Referrer emails received from other clients and/or former clients.

2.3 Allegation 2.1 amounts to professional misconduct as defined in the Professional Conduct Procedure.

74. This is admitted by the Member. The Panel has seen the three emails concerned from other clients that the Member forwarded to the Complainant and so breaching those clients’ confidentiality.

75. Misconduct - That conduct is a serious breach of the Ethical Framework, paragraph 55a. It is conduct that seriously undermines public confidence in the profession. The breach was deliberate, and the Member appears to have given little thought at the time to the privacy and confidentiality of those three clients. A service user would be deeply concerned to learn that their emails to their therapist had been shared in this way.

76. The Panel decided that this was a sufficiently serious breach such that it amounted to professional misconduct. It is conduct that undermines the core professional values of trust, confidence and integrity at the heart of the profession.

Allegation 3 – Proved

3.1 The Member failed to contract with the Referrer adequately or at all in that he:

a) Did not provide a contract at the commencement of the therapeutic relationship detailing the terms upon which his services would be provided; and/or
b) Did not recontract with the Referrer to reflect the changes which occurred in the therapeutic relationship.

77. This is admitted by the Member. This was his responsibility and he failed to take these basic steps. This is proved.

28 November 2025 - Sanction Hearing

78. A Sanction hearing took place on 28 November 2025 at which the Member attended. The Panel was provided with a copy of the Decision Report PCP314 of 24 October 2025; a previous adverse finding; a written statement and mitigation statement submitted by the Member; and testimonials submitted by the Member.

Submissions from the Member

79. The Panel heard from the Member. He referred to the testimonials, his mitigation statement and he read out a formal written statement that he had prepared.

80. The Panel posed a number of questions to the Member. He was asked about his current position and explained he was currently suspended so was not working with clients. He said he had learnt to lean into the views of others and he had previously been too confident. He said he needed to be really honest and to take advice so that he sees the “red flags”. He had said he had a colleague in mind for supervision who was a senior academic. He said he has also put in place four BACP Counsellors to see if he can work with them for supervisions in a group. He said he had not previously thought deeply enough about supervision.

81. The Member said that he had not properly understood his relationship with authority and this hearing process had fundamentally changed his attitude to authority. Previously he had a deep suspicion of authority. He said he now better understood the BACP processes and values. He said he uses “Heidi” a confidential recording system for his decisions and he now understood that he had to be absolutely “solid” going forward.

82. As regards the previous adverse finding on 26 October 2025, the Member explained he had signed up to courses in Data Protection and Confidentiality. He was working with his solicitors to make sure he met the requirements of the sanction.

Decision on Sanction

83. The Panel accepted the legal advice of the Clerk. He reminded it of Indicative Sanctions Guidance (ISG), of the importance of protecting the public, maintaining public confidence and upholding proper professional standards. He also referred to the Protocol regarding previous adverse findings and that the impact of the previous finding on sanction was matter for the Panel. The Panel must act proportionately, not punitively.

84. The Panel has borne in mind that the purpose of a sanction is not to be punitive, but to protect members of the public and the wider public interest, although it may have a punitive effect.

85. The Panel carefully considered the submissions, all the information before it and the ISG. It was mindful of the need to act proportionately and to balance the Member’s interests with the need to protect the public and the wider public interest.

86. The Panel noted the following mitigating factors:

• Some early admissions and remorse
• A full apology and acceptance of the conduct
• Good insight and steps taken to remedy the misconduct
• Good level of engagement with the BACP process
• The misconduct took place in unprecedented circumstances during a world-wide pandemic

87. The Panel noted the following aggravating factors:

• Although five years has passed since the events there is a further adverse finding regarding client confidentiality
• A breach of both confidentiality and professional boundaries

88. The Panel found that it was not easy to fully or clearly identify the level of harm caused to the Complainant given the consensual nature of the relationship between her and the Member. However, having breached the professional boundaries, the Panel found that some level of harm, by definition, was caused to the Complainant, as well as the profession and to the public at large.

89. The Panel took account that the Member has engaged fully with this process when he could have stepped away. He has demonstrated that he is actively taking steps to understand and to remedy his misconduct, and he has undertaken deep reflection to develop his insight. The previous adverse finding also relates to conduct during the Covid pandemic, and the Panel was of the view the present finding of misconduct took place in that same, unprecedented context. The Panel found that these were significant mitigating factors.

90. The Panel found that the Member has taken meaningful and practical steps to remedy his professional practice as to his insight, learning and supervision. He has demonstrated a better, more respectful understanding of supervision and its importance to proper, professional practice. He appears to now better understand his vulnerabilities. The Panel reached the view that the Member had demonstrated, through his well-developed insight and the steps he has taken to remedy his misconduct, that he is unlikely to repeat his misconduct.

91. The Panel decided that the nature and gravity of the misconduct is such that the lesser sanctions are not appropriate or proportionate. The sanctions of written apology, a requirement to demonstrate change or improvement or a requirement to undertake training alone would not be sufficient, appropriate or proportionate sanctions. They would fail to reflect the seriousness of the misconduct and would fail to protect the public. They would fail to maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold and declare proper professional standards. They would not act as an effective deterrent, nor send an appropriate message to Members.

92. The Panel decided that Suspension of membership for a period of six months was the appropriate and proportionate sanction. That sanction will serve to sufficiently protect the public and the wider public interest and it will appropriately mark the seriousness of the misconduct.

93. The Panel considered that it was also appropriate to impose the following requirements upon the Member. The Member is required to:

• Undertake and successfully complete appropriate and relevant training regarding professional boundaries. This requires to be a course of no less than 18 hours. It may be online or in person.
• Undertake and successfully complete appropriate and relevant training on Data Protection and Confidentiality evidence. This requires to be a course of no less than 18 hours. It may be online or in person.
• Provide a reflection of the changes he has made and what he has learnt as a result of the successful completion of the training, explaining how that learning will change his future practice and prevent repetition of the misconduct
• Provide a report from his supervisor(s) specifically dealing with the issues of client confidentiality and professional boundaries
• Provide further testimonials
• Provide evidence of any personal therapy he has received to assist him in addressing his vulnerabilities and the resulting interaction with clients

22 May 2026 - DPT Appeal Hearing

Introduction

1. This is the hearing of an appeal by the Association against a sanction decision of a Professional Conduct Panel (the Panel) imposed on Christopher Kidd (the Member) by a decision of 28 November 2025.

2. The Member attended and was supported by […]

3. The Association was represented by […], solicitor advocate.

The Disciplinary Proceedings Hearing

4. A Disciplinary Proceedings Hearing took place on 30 June, 1 July, 3 September, and 28 November 2025.

5. […] (identified in the Allegations as the Referrer) had complained about the conduct of the Member.

6. The Member admitted all of the allegations he faced save for Allegations 1.1 a, 1.1 c i, 1.1 c ii and 1.1 d. Allegations 1.1 c i and 1.1 c ii were found proved. Allegations 1.1 a and 1.1 d were found not proved.

7. The Allegations found proved are set out below.

Allegation 1

1.1 The Member entered into a relationship with the Referrer, which was professionally inappropriate, in that:
b. He engaged in a physical relationship with the Referrer within a very short period following the ending of the therapeutic relationship; and/or
c. He encouraged her to conceal the relationship by:
i. warning her of the consequences for him if she did not do so; and/or
ii. requesting her to delete messages or pictures exchanged between them;

34 (We will not have sexual relationships with or behave sexually towards our clients, supervisees or trainees) and/or 35 (We will not exploit or abuse our clients in any way: financially, emotionally, physically, sexually or spiritually) and/or 37 (We will avoid continuing or resuming any relationships with former clients that could harm the client or damage any benefits from the therapeutic work undertaken. We recognise that conflicts of interest and issues of power or dependence may continue after our working relationship with a client, supervisee or trainee has formally ended. a) We will exercise caution before entering into personal or business relationships with former clients; and/or b) We will avoid sexual or intimate relationships with former clients or people close to them. Exceptionally, such a relationship will only be permissible following careful consideration in supervision and, whenever possible, following discussion with experienced colleagues or others concerned about the integrity of the counselling professions, when:
• enough time has elapsed, or the circumstances of the people concerned have sufficiently changed to establish a distinction between the former and proposed new relationship
• any therapeutic dynamics from the former relationship have been sufficiently resolved to enable beginning a different type of relationship. (This may not be possible with some clients or inappropriate to some therapeutic ways of working.)
• an equivalent service to the one provided by the practitioner is available to the former client, should this be wanted in future
• the practitioner has taken demonstrable care in ensuring that the new relationship has integrity and is not exploitative; and/or
c) We will be professionally accountable if the relationship becomes detrimental to the former client or damages the standing of the profession.)

1.3 Allegations 1.1 b. and/or c. amount to professional misconduct
as defined in the Professional Conduct Procedure.

Allegation 2

2.1 The Member breached client confidentiality by disclosing to the Referrer emails received from other clients and/or former clients.

2.3 Allegation 2.1 amounts to professional misconduct as defined in the Professional Conduct Procedure.

Allegation 3

3.1 The Member failed to contract with the Referrer adequately or at all in that he:
a) Did not provide a contract at the commencement of the therapeutic relationship detailing the terms upon which his services would be provided; and/or
b) Did not recontract with the Referrer to reflect the changes which occurred in the therapeutic relationship.

8. The decision of the Panel on 28 November 2025 was to impose the following sanction:

(1) The Member was suspended from membership for a period of six months.

(2) In addition, the Member was required to:
(a) Undertake and successfully complete appropriate and relevant training regarding professional boundaries. This requires to be a course of no less than 18 hours. It may be online or in person.
(b) Undertake and successfully complete appropriate and relevant training on Data Protection and Confidentiality evidence. This requires to be a course of no less than 18 hours. It may be online or in person.
(c) Provide a reflection on the changes he has made and what he has learnt as a result of the successful completion of the training, explaining how that learning will change his future practice and prevent repetition of the misconduct.
(d) Provide a report from his supervisor(s) specifically dealing with the issues of client confidentiality and professional boundaries.
(e) Provide further testimonials.
(f) Provide evidence of any personal therapy he has received to assist him in addressing his vulnerabilities and the resulting interaction with clients.

9. The Panel’s written determination on sanction is dated 19 December 2025.

Background to the Appeal

10. By document dated 23 January 2026 the Association sought to appeal the Panel’s decision on sanction pursuant to paragraph 6.4b of the Association’s Professional Conduct Procedure (PCP) on the ground that:

The sanction is disproportionate to the findings and the decision of the Professional Conduct Panel is unjust in all the circumstances.

11. Pursuant to paragraph 6 of the PCP and the Association’s Protocol 8, an Independent Reviewer (IR) considered the Association’s Grounds of Appeal, which were:

1. It is not clear from the Panel’s decision whether the Panel fully considered the potential sanction of withdrawal. The Panel did note that the suspension of membership was the ‘appropriate and proportionate’ sanction, that it will ‘serve to sufficiently protect the public and the wider public interest and it will appropriately mark the seriousness of the misconduct.’ They have not however explained why they did not impose a sanction of withdrawal, so it is unclear whether this was discussed, nor how the decision was made to find that withdrawal would not be appropriate in this matter.

2. The Association’s Sanctions Guidance makes clear that ‘where the Member has abused their position or another’s trust’, a withdrawal of membership may be appropriate. At paragraph 72 the Panel specifically found that: ‘encouragement to conceal found proved was a misuse of the significant power imbalance in the relationship, a power imbalance known and accepted by the Member’.

3. The Association considers that these breaches of confidentiality and crossing of professional boundaries amount to a serious breach of professional standards and that any sanction less severe than withdrawal of membership would be considered as inappropriate in this case and would be incompatible with our public protection responsibilities.

12. In a written determination dated 19 February 2026 the decision of the IR was:

In conclusion, I find there is a realistic prospect that an appeal would succeed on the ground set out [by the Association]. Accordingly, this case is referred to the Appeal Panel.

THE APPEAL

13. The Appeal was heard on 22 May 2026 by a Panel consisting of […], Chair, […] and […] (the Appeal Panel).

14. The Association is the Appellant in this appeal; solely for the purposes of simplicity and continuity it is referred to throughout the remainder of this report as ‘the Association’.

15. The Member is the Respondent in this appeal; solely for the purposes of simplicity and continuity he is referred to throughout the remainder of this report as ‘the Member’.

16. The Member opposes the Appeal.

Preliminary Issues

17. There were three preliminary issues before the Appeal Panel:

(1) Late provision by the Association of its written submissions

A Case Management Meeting (CMM) took place on 1 May 2026 before […]. The Member and […] attended. A number of directions were made for the preparation of this Appeal, including dates for the provision of written submissions. The Association failed to provide its written submissions by the date provided. As a consequence, the Member’s written submissions were provided shortly before the hearing. The parties and the Appeal Panel were satisfied there had been sufficient time for consideration of the documents.

(2) Provision on the morning of the hearing of written submissions by […] on the inclusion of […] (who had previously sat on panels considering the Interim Suspension Order imposed on the Member) on the Appeal Panel.

Time was provided for the Member and the Appeal Panel to consider this document.

(3) Whether there was an issue for the Member about […] membership of the Appeal Panel.

In the event, no issues were raised by the Member and the Appeal Panel was satisfied that […] prior involvement in the case did not raise a conflict of interest or any other reason why she should recuse herself from hearing the appeal.

Materials and Documents before the Appeal Panel

18. The following materials and documents were before the Appeal Panel:

(1) audio recording of the hearing on 30 June, 1 July, 4 September and 28 November 2025,

(2) transcripts of the above hearings,

(3) a hearing bundle of 155 pages consisting of:

(a) the Referrer’s complaint
(b) report of decision of the Investigation and Assessment Committee (IAC) of 14 November 2023
(c) undated Preliminary Submissions with exhibits on behalf of the Member
(d) report of decision of the IAC of 3 May 2024
(e) witness statement of the Referrer dated 18 December 2024 together with exhibits
(f) correspondence of various dates between the Member and the Association
(g) report of decision of the Professional Conduct Panel of 12 February 2025
(h) report of decision of the IAC of 1 May 2025
(i) adjournment decision of the Professional Conduct Panel of 1 July 2025
(j) report of the Professional Conduct Panel covering hearing dates of 30 June, 1 July and 4 September 2025
(k) documents provided by the Member: mitigation statement dated 10 October 2025 with attachments
(l) report of decision of the IAC of 13 November 2025
(m) report of the Professional Conduct Panel covering hearing dates of 30 June, 1 July 4 September 2025 and 28 November 2025

(4) a further copy of the report of the Panel covering hearing dates of 30 June, 1 July 4 September 2025 and 28 November 2025

(5) the Association’s appeal document dated 23 January 2026

(6) decision of the IR dated 19 February 2026

(7) Member’s representations dated 8 April 2026 in response to the IR’s report

(8) report of the CMM of 1 May 2026

(9) Association’s document on Format of Appeal Hearing - The Disciplinary Proceedings Track

(10) Association’s written submissions dated 18 May 2026

(11) Member’s written submissions dated 21 May 2026

(12) further correspondence of various dates between the Member and the Association about Preliminary Matter (3)

(13) Association’s written submissions dated 21 May 2026 on Preliminary Matter (3)

The Hearing

19. At the commencement of the hearing the Clerk outlined the Panel’s findings, the Association’s Grounds of Appeal and the options available to the Appeal Panel pursuant to paragraph 6.6e of the PCP, namely:

reject or allow the whole appeal or any part of it
uphold the Panel’s decision or any part of it
substitute the whole or any part of the Panel’s decision with its own
uphold the Panel’s sanction, substitute its own sanction or order that any sanction be lifted

20. The Panel considered the parties’ written submissions and heard the oral submissions of both parties.

21. […] commended her written submissions to the Appeal Panel and focused on:

(a) the Association’s Indicative Sanctions Guidance (the Guidance) particularly those parts on breach of boundaries and sexual misconduct, including with a former partner, and

(b) the case law of GMC and PSA v Bramhall [2021] EWHC 2109 (Admin), PSA v GOC and Rose [2021] EWHC 2888 (Admin) and PSA v GMC and Lingham [2023] EWHC 967 (Admin) which make clear the importance of giving due consideration to the applicable sanctions guidance and the provision of sufficient reasons so that there is a clear explanation of why a particular sanction was imposed.

22. The Member emphasised to the Appeal Panel:
(a) the Panel was not required to give exhaustive reasons; that it had provided sufficient reasons,
(b) the case of Rashid v GMC [2007] EWCA Civ 46 sets out that panels should start with the least restrictive sanction and move upwards imposing the least restrictive sanction to satisfy public protection,
(c) the case of Cheatle v GMC [2009] EWHC 646 (Admin) confirms that genuine insight, remediation and low likelihood of repetition are highly material when determining whether permanent exclusion is proportionate,
(d) the case PSA and HCPC v Doree [2017] EWHC 1730 (Admin) addresses the disadvantage to an appeal panel of not having heard the evidence,
(e) he distinguished the case of Bramhall, the case of the surgeon who had branded patient’s livers.

The Member proposed that, if the Appeal Panel found the Panel’s decision required a fuller explanation, it could impose a longer period of suspension together with further requirements

23. The Clerk provided legal advice on the Guidance: the remit of the Guidance, the purpose of sanctions, the purpose of protecting the public, on factors to take into account when deciding on sanction, on the specific guidance for breach of confidentiality, on the specific guidance for breach of boundaries, on the specific guidance on sexual misconduct, on taking into account mitigating and aggravating circumstances, on how to consider each sanction available in order of increasing impact and on the specific matters identified when withdrawal of membership may be appropriate. Arising from a matter raised by the Member in his written submissions for the hearing the Clerk advised that the decision in the case of Kamberova v NMC [2016] EWHC 2995 (Admin) is that what effect a period of interim suspension has on its decision is for the Appeal Panel to decide.

Reasons for Decision on the Sufficiency of the Panel’s Reasons

Was withdrawal of membership available to the Panel?

24. The Appeal Panel first considered whether withdrawal of membership was a sanction available to the Panel.

25. The Panel found that Allegations:

1.1 b: the Member engaged in a physical relationship with the Referrer within a very short period following the end of the therapeutic relationship
1.1 c i: he encouraged [the Referrer] to conceal the relationship by warning her of the consequences for him if she did not do so
1.1 c ii: he encouraged [the Referrer] to conceal the relationship by requesting her to delete messages or pictures exchanged between them

each separately amounted to professional misconduct [paragraphs 70 to 73] *

26. The Appeal Panel considers it to be non-contentious that the above Allegations are not only breaches of boundaries but are also Allegations of sexual misconduct.

27. In the circumstances set out in paragraphs 25 and 26 above, the Appeal Panel concludes that withdrawal of membership was a sanction available to the Panel.

28. The Panel found that Allegation 2.1:

the Member breached client confidentiality by disclosing to the Referrer emails received from other clients and/or former clients

also amounted to professional misconduct [paragraphs 75 and 76].

29. In the circumstances set out in paragraph 28 above, the Appeal Panel concludes that Allegation 2.1 of itself would have made withdrawal of membership a sanction available to the Panel.

Adequacy of the Panel’s Written Determination

30. The Appeal Panel accepts the Association’s submissions on the case law it relied upon, including on Bramhall, that the Panel was required to provide sufficient information for any reader to know whether they had considered the potential sanction of withdrawal.

31. The Appeal Panel went on to consider whether the Panel’s written determination includes consideration of the potential sanction of withdrawal.

32 The Appeal Panel had no hesitation in concluding that the Panel had not set out whether it had considered the potential sanction of withdrawal. Whilst:

(a) in [paragraph 91] the Panel considered that the lesser sanctions of written apology, a requirement to demonstrate change or improvement or a requirement to undertake training alone would not be sufficient or appropriate sanctions, and

(b) in [paragraph 92] determined that suspension of membership for a period of six months was the appropriate and proportionate sanction that would serve to sufficiently protect the public and the wider public interest and would appropriately mark the seriousness of the misconduct, and

(c) in [paragraph 93] the Panel set out that it also considered it appropriate to impose six requirements on the Member, the Panel failed to explain why it considered it not to be appropriate to impose the potential sanction of withdrawal.

33. Further, the Panel failed to include in its written determination whether it had taken into account that part of the Guidance under ‘Sexual misconduct’ which states:

‘If a panel considers imposing a lesser sanction [than withdrawal of membership], it must give sufficient detailed reasons for doing so to allow the public, who have not heard the evidence, to easily understand.’

Decision on the Adequacy of the Panel’s Written Reasons

34. The decision of the Appeal Panel is that the Panel failed to set out in its written determination, having identified the sanction of suspension for six months together with six requirements, whether it had considered the potential sanction of withdrawal.

35. The Appeal Panel allows the Association’s appeal and will go on to consider sanction.

Sanction

36. The Appeal Panel does not consider itself, in the particular circumstances of this case, to be at a disadvantage in not having heard the evidence; it had before it the Panel’s findings and written determination and all the documentation that had been before the Panel.

Reasons for Decision on Sanction

37. The Appeal Panel took into account the purpose of sanctions as set out in the Guidance in the section ‘Purpose of Sanctions’.

38. The Appeal Panel commenced by considering each of the factors in the Guidance under ‘Assessing Sanctions’.

(1) whether the Member admitted to, and apologised for, the behaviour which led to the complaint

Of the Panel’s findings of fact, the Member accepted all of those proved save for Allegations 1 c i and 1 c ii. The Appeal Panel considers these additional findings to be of significance as they are factors that are reflective of the power imbalance in the relationship between the Member and the Referrer.

The Member has apologised to the Referrer, to the Panel and to the Appeal Panel.

(2) whether the member has shown insight into their own behaviour or practice and taken steps to address any deficiencies through appropriate training, coaching or similar

In his submissions to the Panel and to the Appeal Panel and the documents he had provided, the Member sought to demonstrate his insight into his conduct, what he had learned since the conduct occurred and how he had changed significantly. The Panel had acknowledged these factors in its decision [paragraph 90] and had concluded that the Member had demonstrated well-developed insight and considered that he was unlikely to repeat his misconduct

The Appeal Panel gave careful consideration to the arguments advanced by the Member as to these factors and the conclusions of the Panel. However, it had significant concerns as to the Member’s insight which it did not consider that the Panel had significantly addressed. The Appeal Panel noted that the Member minimises his conduct in his Mitigation Statement that was before the Panel, for example:

(i) he describes his conduct in a number of ways:
• ‘mistakes’: page 103 of the hearing bundle second paragraph
• ‘not an act of deliberate misconduct’: page 104, second paragraph under ‘Insight and Reflection’
• in explaining his breaches of confidentiality the Member uses the words ‘regrettably’, ‘error of judgment’ and ‘inappropriately’: ‘[The Referrer] became a trusted member of my business and later registered and salaried director of my company, and in those capacities, client information was regrettably shared inappropriately. I take full responsibility for that error of judgement ….’: page 103 sixth paragraph
• he apologised to the Referrer for his ‘lapses in professional and personal judgement.’: page 103 seventh paragraph

The Appeal Panel considers the Member’s sexual misconduct and breaches of client confidentiality to be more accurately described as fundamental breaches of two of the core principles of the profession.

(ii) the Member expresses his ‘deep regret’ about entering into his relationship with the Referrer: page 103 fifth paragraph and refers to his ‘error of judgment’

The Appeal Panel considers this to be a weak response to the magnitude of his conduct.

(3) what steps, if any, the member took to remedy the practice or behaviour that is the subject of the complaint

The Appeal Panel heard submissions from the Member on changes he had made to his record keeping system and his change in attitude to authority and supervision. In addition, the Appeal Panel noted the log of self-directed learning and the CPD certificates that had been provided to the Panel.

Whilst the Appeal Panel recognises that the Member cannot evidence any changes in his therapeutic/counselling practice as he has been suspended from membership of the Association since November 2023, it notes that whilst the Member has undertaken a large amount of self-directed learning, it has been provided with very little evidence of external assessment of the Member’s learning.

(4) the member’s previous professional history

The Appeal Panel notes from his CV that the Member had been working since 2019 in a mental health role. The Appeal Panel takes from this that the Member had been in a therapist/counselling role for approximately two years before the relationship with the Referrer started around November 2020 [paragraph 61].

In addition to this referral, the Member has been referred to the Association by a different client about a breach of her confidentiality via email.

The Appeal Panel considers this to be of marginal relevance in light of the seriousness of the conduct under consideration in this Appeal.

(5) any relevant personal or professional issues raised by the member or the complainant

The Member disclosed to the Appeal Panel that he had been diagnosed with ADHD and that this knowledge had assisted him in understanding his conduct; he did not assert this was a defence of his conduct.

(6) the time that has passed since the incident took place

The events in issue took place between 2020 and 2023 although the case before the Panel did not conclude until November 2025.

(7) whether the member knew, or reasonably should have known, that their actions or omissions did or could have caused harm to the complainant

The Panel found it was not easy to fully or clearly identify the level of harm caused to the Referrer given the consensual nature of the relationship between her and the Member, but that some level of harm, by definition, was caused to her [paragraph 88].

The Appeal Panel agrees with this analysis but adds that it imputes to the Member, as a trained therapist/counsellor, the knowledge that by his conduct he exposed the Referrer to a risk of harm.

(8) the seriousness of the harm suffered by the complainant and the extent to which that was caused by the member’s actions or omissions

The Appeal Panel adopts the analysis at (7) above.

(9) whether the member is likely to repeat or compound that wrongdoing

The Appeal Panel considers there is a risk of repetition, given:

(a) the minimisation of his conduct set out in (2) above,

(b) the Member deliberately avoided disclosing his relationship with the Referrer to his supervisor [paragraph 70]

(c) the Member did not refer himself to his regulator for his conduct in relation to the Referrer which the Panel found he entered into knowing that it was a fundamental breach of his core professional standards [paragraph 70],

(d) nor did the Member refer himself for his deliberate and unjustified breaches of client confidentiality involving three clients between 12 August 2021 and 12 October 2023,

(e) in forwarding Client 2’s emails to the Referrer the Member added the personal comment ‘Don’t really want to ever think or talk about her again.’ demonstrating a highly unprofessional attitude to his client.

(10) the impact the misconduct may have on public confidence in the profession

The Appeal Panel considers the impact on public confidence in the Association and in the wider counselling professions to be grave.

(11) any public interest factors

The public interest includes:
(i) maintaining public confidence in and the reputation of the counselling professionals,
(ii) promoting and maintaining proper professional standards
(iii) deterring others from behaving as the Member has.

The Appeal Panel concludes that all three of the above are fully engaged in this case.

(12) whether the member discriminated against the complainant on the basis of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, gender reassignment, marital status, age, disability or any other characteristic protected by law

This factor does not apply.

(13) any other circumstance which could reasonably be seen as a mitigating factor

The Appeal Panel accepts that the Member’s conduct commenced during the COVID-19 public health crisis and that, as the Member submits, research has been undertaken on the impact of COVID-19 on therapists/counsellors. However, on the Member’s own evidence about his attitude at that time to authority and to supervision, the Appeal Panel considers that his failure to disclose his relationship with the Referrer to his supervisor, his poor attitude to supervision and authority in general and his total disregard for the conduct that was expected of him, were unlikely to be linked to COVID-19.

(14) any other circumstance which could reasonably be seen as an aggravating factor

No other matters arise.

39. The Appeal Panel next considered the factors listed in the Guidance under ‘Breach of confidentiality’

(1) the reason or reasons for the breach

There was no good reason for the Member’s breach of confidentiality of any of his three clients.

(2) whether there is evidence to suggest a lack of understanding and training in matters of confidentiality

The Appeal Panel relies on the matters set out in paragraph 38 above as they apply to breach of confidentiality.

(3) whether there appears to have been any purposeful intent behind the breach

On considering the emails sent by the Member to the Referrer, the Appeal Panel considers the Member’s breach of each client’s confidentiality to have been deliberate.

(4) any evidence of remorse or insight on the part of the practitioner

The Appeal Panel relies on the matters set out at 38 (2) above as they apply to breach of confidentiality.

40. The Appeal Panel also considered the factors listed under ‘Sexual misconduct’; it did not separately consider the factors under ‘Breach of boundaries’, considering the sexual misconduct factors to be more appropriate to the facts of this case.

(1) the risk to public protection if the member were to remain in membership

The Appeal Panel relies upon the matters set out in 38 (2) (insight) and 38 (9) (risk of repetition) above as they relate to sexual misconduct.

(2) the position of trust the member was in at the time of the conduct

The Appeal Panel considered that the Member was in a position of trust since the Referrer was a recent client of the Member.

(3) the vulnerability of the client

The Appeal Panel relies upon the matters set out at 38 (7) and 38 (8) above.

(4) whether the misconduct was a one-off incident or prolonged

The sexual misconduct involved one recent former client but spanned the time frame 2020 to 2023 and includes the Panel’s findings that the Member encouraged the Referrer to conceal the relationship by warning her of the consequences for him if she did not do so and that he also encouraged the Referrer to conceal the relationship by requesting her to delete messages or pictures exchanged between them.

(5) whether deliberate steps were taken by the member to facilitate the sexual misconduct

The Panel found that it was unclear to what extent the Member took steps to facilitate the sexual misconduct and the accounts of the Member and Complainant of the events leading to the commencement of the relationship differed, though the Panel found that the Member entered into his relationship with the Referrer knowing that it was a fundamental breach of his core professional standards [paragraph 70].

(6) whether the member has demonstrated insight into their misconduct and any steps to address their behaviour

The Appeal Panel relies upon 38 (2) and 38 (3) above as they relate to sexual misconduct.

Where the sexual relationship was with a former client, the panel should also consider:

(1) the time that has passed since the therapeutic relationship and whether that time is considered reasonable in all the circumstances

The passage of time between the ending of the therapeutic relationship and the beginning of the relationship was very brief.

(2) the vulnerability of the former client and (3) the impact of the relationship on the client’s well-being

The Appeal Panel relies upon 38 (7) and 38 (8) above.

41. The Appeal Panel also considered the factors listed under ‘Withdrawal of membership’

(1) where the member has knowingly and deliberately behaved in a way to cause harm to the Complainant or other members of the public

As previously indicated, the Appeal Panel considers the Member’s sexual misconduct and breaches of client confidentiality as fundamental breaches of two of the core principles of the profession, knowingly and deliberately undertaken and relies upon 38 (7) and 38 (8) above in relation to the sexual misconduct.

(2) where the member has been dishonest or lacked integrity

This is not a matter the Member faced.

(3) where the complaint involves sexual misconduct

The Appeal Panel relies upon the matters set out above as they apply to sexual misconduct.

(4) where the member has shown a blatant disregard for professional standards

The Panel found the Member entered into his relationship with the Referrer knowing that it was a fundamental breach of his core professional standards [paragraph 70].

On considering the emails sent by the Member to the Referrer, the Appeal Panel considers the Member’s breach of each client’s confidentiality to have been deliberate and showed a blatant disregard for the professional standards to which the Member was subject.

(5) where the member has abused their position or another’s trust

The Appeal Panel considered that the Member abused his position of trust in relation to the Referrer since she was a recent client of the Member.

(6) where the harm to the complainant is particularly severe

The Appeal Panel knows no more about harm to the Referrer than is set out under 38 (7) and 38 (8) above.

(7) where the member has shown a complete lack of insight into, or remorse for, their behaviour

The Appeal Panel did not consider that this was a case where the Member had shown complete lack of insight or remorse but has noted its significant reservations on these points in 38 (2) and 38 (9) above as they relate to sexual misconduct.

(8) where the member has demonstrated an unwillingness to comply with BACP’s policies and procedures

The Appeal Panel relies upon 41 (4) above.

(9) any other factors which the panel consider warrant withdrawal of membership or registration

All matters have been considered above.

42. The Appeal Panel considers that, by working through the factors above, it has taken into account the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors in this case.

43. The Appeal Panel considered the following sanctions in the order of the increasing impact they would have on the Member - a written apology, training, requirement to demonstrate change or improvement. None of these sanctions would reflect the seriousness of the Member’s conduct nor would they protect the public, maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold and declare proper professional standards, act as a deterrent or send an appropriate message to Members.

44. The Appeal Panel next considered suspension of the Member from membership which could be for up to 18 months. The Appeal Panel determined that a suspension of any length would not reflect the gravity of the Member’s conduct that it has considered in significant detail above, nor would it protect the public, maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold and declare proper professional standards, act as a deterrent or send an appropriate message to BACP members.

45. The Appeal Panel next considered a suspension of up to 18 months together with additional requirements. The Appeal Panel determined the addition of requirements to a suspension of up to 18 months would still not reflect the seriousness of the Member’s conduct nor would it protect the public, maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold and declare proper professional standards, act as a deterrent or send an appropriate message to BACP members.

46. The decision of the Appeal Panel is that, taking all the matters considered above into account, withdrawal of Membership is the only sanction that would satisfy the gravity of the allegations as analysed above - the Member’s deliberate conduct by which he failed to meet two of the core principles required of him as a member of the Association. Withdrawal of membership is therefore the only sanction proportionate to the gravity of the Member’s conduct. The Appeal Panel considers that no lesser sanction than withdrawal of membership would be sufficient to protect the public.

47. The Appeal Panel also considers that withdrawal of membership is necessary to maintain public confidence in the Association and the wider counselling professions.

48. By this decision the Appeal Panel wishes to send a clear message to the Member, to the wider profession and to the public about what the Association expects of its members and the profession.

49. The Appeal Panel recognises that the Member has been suspended from membership since November 2023 but since it considers that the only proportionate sanction is withdrawal of membership, the length of time for which he has already been suspended does not make it disproportionate. It also recognizes that withdrawal will have a significant impact on the Member. However, it considers that the public interest in the sanction imposed outweighs the impact on the Member.

Decision on Sanction

50. The decision of the Appeal Panel is to withdraw the Member’s membership of the Association; his name will be removed from the register of members of the Association.

Right of Appeal

51. There is no right of appeal to this decision.

Interim Suspension

52. On notification of this decision to the Member, the interim suspension will no longer have effect.

(Where ellipses [ . . . ] are displayed, they indicate an omission of text)