Professional Conduct notice / SH

June 2026: Steven Hughes, Membership Number 00725163, Registrant ID 70699

1. An Article 12.6 Panel consisting of […], Chair, […] and […] convened on 10 April 2026 to consider whether Steven Hughes (the Member) was suitable to be a member of the Association.

Background

2. On 15 May 2023 the Association was notified by the Metropolitan Police Service that the Member was under investigation on suspicion of sexual offences towards a child believed to be under 16 years of age, that the Member had been arrested and released on conditional bail which included a condition not to have any unsupervised contact with anyone under the age of 18.

3. The Association has been informed that the Member had been confronted by the […] (the Group) and that the Group called the police with evidence that the Member had engaged in sexual communication with a child under the age of 16. The alleged child was a decoy volunteering for the Group.

4. A Registrar’s decision was made to process the case via paragraph 1.5 of the Association’s Professional Conduct Procedure, the Registrar being of the opinion that the conduct of the Member is such that it would be in the public interest for the conduct of the Member to form the basis of a complaint.

5. The Member was convicted at Woolwich Crown Court of 4 charges of attempting to engage in sexual communication with a child. For these offences the Member was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment suspended for 18 months and was made subject to a 10 year Sexual Harm Prevention Order.

6. On 5 February 2026 the Association wrote to the Member informing him that the Registrar had decided to refer the matter to an Article 12.6 Panel for consideration and that the Association would be asking the 12.6 Panel to consider four allegations

Allegations

7. The allegations placed before the Panel by the Association are that the Member’s actions:

1) Constitute a risk to clients

2) Have or are likely to diminish public confidence in the counselling professions

3) Have or are likely to bring the reputation of the Association and the profession into disrepute

4) Give good reason to believe that there has been a serious breach of BACP’s Codes of Ethics & Practice/Ethical Framework

Documents Before the Panel

8. The Panel had before it the following documents:

a. confirmation of the Member’s current membership of the Association;

b. 17 page folio of documents including the Member’s 2 page typed document dated 17 February 2026 in response to the Associations letter to him of 5 February 2026 and opposing any action being taken by the 12.6 Panel;

c. the Associations Terms of Reference for Article 12.6 Panels.

Legal Framework

9. The Panel accepted that it was making its decision within the framework of Article 12.6 of the Association’s Articles of Association which provides:

‘Any member of the Association may be excluded from membership of the Association by a resolution of the Board of Governors acting upon the recommendation of a subcommittee of that Board of Governors or by a relevant panel or body whose function is to consider the conduct of such members in accordance with the standing orders made under these Articles for the time being in force provided that due notice is given and the said member be given an opportunity to make representations to a meeting convened for that purpose.’

10. The Panel accepted the clerk’s legal advice that:

a. The Panel’s role is to consider whether the information before it evidences that the Member’s actions:

i. have brought or could bring the reputation of BACP into disrepute

ii. have brought or could bring the reputations of counselling and/or psychology into disrepute

iii. resulted in BACP’s private business being brought into the public domain

iv. gives good reason to believe that the member may be misrepresenting his/her/the organisation’s membership status

v. gives good reason to believe there has been a serious breach of BACP’s Codes of Ethics & Practice/Ethical Framework and where the Association’s Professional Conduct Procedure cannot be used and/or its use is not appropriate in the circumstances

In summary, the Panel is invited to conclude whether the Member’s conduct is incompatible with the values expected of a member of BACP.

b. The Panel has to consider whether it finds any of the Allegations proved on the balance of probabilities, the burden of proof being on the Association.

Evaluation of the Evidence Before the Panel

11. The Association’s letter to the Member of 5 February 2026 sets out the Allegations to be determined by the Panel, as set out in paragraph 7 above, and tells the Member that the information available to the Association is that:

‘… you have been convicted of 4 counts of attempting to engage in sexual communications with a minor and have been sentenced to the following:

a. An 18-month custodial sentence, suspended for 18 months.

b. A 10-hear Sexual Harm Prevention Order.’

12. In his representations of 17 February 2026 the Member does not challenge the accuracy of the above and:

• maintains that he is ‘… not guilty of the charges for which I have been convicted.’
• makes clear that each charge referred to a decoy, not an actual child
• that he was convinced by a number of factors that each of the profiles he engaged with was fake, that none was a child
• his communications did include sexual humour and references, none of which could be thought of as gratifying sexually

13. The Member has not:

• asserted or provided evidence that he has appealed or is appealing any of his convictions
• provided any evidence to support his assertion that he knew the 4 profiles were fake
• provided any evidence that, as well knowingly engaging with the 4 fake profiles, he had ‘worked out’ many other online scams eg romance and investment scams.

14. In these circumstances, the Panel is satisfied there is cogent evidence to satisfy it on the balance of probabilities that the Member has been convicted of 4 counts of attempting to engage in sexual communications with a minor and that he has been sentenced to an 18-month custodial sentence suspended for 18 months and made the subject of a 10-year Sexual Harm Prevention Order.
15. The Panel, therefore, proceeds to consider each of the Allegations in the context that the Member has attempted to engage in sexual communications with 4 minors.

Reasons for Decision of the Panel

16. The Panel considered each Allegation in turn:

1) The Member’s actions constitute a risk to clients

The Panel has no information about Member’s client group or groups or the modality of the services he provides to his clients. However, the Panel considers that, if the Member’s judgement as a provider of therapeutic services regulated by the Association enables him to attempt to engage in sexual communications with 4 minors, it considers the Member’s judgment to be flawed and that his judgement may constitute a risk to clients.

The Panel finds Allegation (1) found proved on the balance of probabilities.

2) The Member’s actions have or are likely to diminish public confidence in the counselling professions

The Panel considers that, as a member of the Association, the Member has a responsibility to conduct himself in a way that upholds the reputation of the Association and the counselling professions and does not diminish public confidence in the Association and the counselling professions. The Panel is very firmly and clearly of the view the conduct of the Member falls very significantly below the standard expected of him.

In these circumstances, the Panel considers that the Member’s actions have or are likely to diminish public confidence in the counselling professions.

The Panel finds Allegation (2) found proved on the balance of probabilities.

3) The Member’s actions have or are likely to bring the reputation of the Association and the profession into disrepute

Similarly to Allegation (2) above, it is the responsibility of each member of the Association to conduct themselves in a way that upholds the reputation of the Association and the counselling profession. As in Allegation (2) above the Panel is very firmly and clearly of the view the conduct of the Member falls very significantly below the standard expected of him.

In these circumstances, the Panel considers that the Member’s actions have or are likely to bring the reputation of the Association and the profession into disrepute

The Panel finds Allegation (3) found proved on the balance of probabilities.

4) The Member’s actions give good reason to believe that there has been a serious breach of BACP’s Codes of Ethics & Practice/Ethical Framework

The Panel considers that by his conduct the Member has breached paragraph 48 of the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018: ‘We will avoid any actions that will bring our profession into disrepute.’

The Panel finds Allegation (4) found proved on the balance of probabilities.

Decision

17. The decision of the Panel is that the Member’s conduct:

• has brought or could bring the reputation of BACP into disrepute
• has brought or could bring the reputations of counselling and/or psychology into disrepute
• gives good reason to believe there has been a serious breach of BACP’s Codes of Ethics & Practice/Ethical Framework, specifically paragraph 48 of the Ethical Framework.

18. The Panel considers that the conduct of the Member is incompatible with the values expected of a member of BACP.

19. The Panel decided to recommend that the Board of Governors resolve to exclude Steven Hughes from membership of the Association pursuant to Article 12.6 of the Articles of the Association, subject to any appeal of this decision.

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