March 2024: SG, Reference No: 00701177 Registrant ID: 57026
March 2024: Sandra Goad, Reference No:00701177 Registrant ID:57026
The Professional Conduct Panel, consisting of 摆鈥 met on 摆鈥remotely via MS Teams to consider the complaint brought by 摆鈥 (the Complainant) against Sandra Goad (the Member), who was, at the time of the matters in question, a British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (麻豆原创) individual member.
Also in attendance were 摆鈥 (Clerk鈥檚 Assistant) and 摆鈥 (Clerk to the Panel).
The Complainant was present and support by 摆鈥.
The Member was present and supported by 摆鈥.
Summary
An Investigation and Assessment Committee (IAC) previously considered the complaint and the information provided by the Complainant and decided that the following allegations met the Proceedings Test.
Allegations
摆鈥
Allegation 1
1.1 The Member breached the Complainant鈥檚 confidentiality without 摆鈥 justification, in that she wrote two letters dated 21 May Year 7 and 21 March Year 8 in support of the Complainant鈥檚 former partner, without the Complainant鈥檚 consent.
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 鈥楪ood Practice鈥� in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018:
43 We will maintain high standards of honesty and probity in all aspects of our work.
46 We will give conscientious consideration to the law and how we fulfil any legal requirements concerning our work.
48 We will avoid any actions that will bring our profession into disrepute.
摆鈥
摆鈥
Allegation 2
2.1 The content of the Member鈥檚 letters of 21 May Year 7 and 21 March Year 8 was biased and/or unprofessional and/or inaccurate, in that they:
a. Presented 摆鈥 the unverified views of the Complainant鈥檚 former partner; and/or
b. Were based on out of date information as the therapeutic relationship had ended significantly earlier.
2.2 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with the following paragraph of 鈥楪ood Practice鈥� in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018:
43 We will maintain high standards of honesty and probity in all aspects of our work.
48 We will avoid any actions that will bring our profession into disrepute.
摆鈥
Allegation 3
3.1 In the letter dated 21 March Year 8, the Member stated that the Complainant 鈥渁nd that she has 摆鈥 which may possibly include 摆鈥;鈥�, when she was not qualified to make such a diagnosis.
3.2 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with the following paragraph of 鈥楪ood Practice鈥� in the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018:
13 (We must be competent to deliver the services being offered to at least fundamental professional standards or better. When we consider satisfying professional standards requires consulting others with relevant expertise, seeking second opinions, or making referrals, we will do so in ways that meet our commitments and obligations for client confidentiality and data protection) and/or 43 (We will maintain high standards of honesty and probity in all aspects of our work) and/or 48 (We will avoid any actions that will bring our profession into disrepute).
Preliminary matter
Amendment of allegations
The Panel had noted during its preparation for the hearing that Allegation 1 required amendment as the first paragraph of the allegation was unnumbered.
It also agreed that it wished to amend the first paragraph of Allegation 1 and paragraph 2.1(a) of allegation 2 as follows:
鈥� Allegation 1, first paragraph 鈥� Delete the word 鈥榗linical鈥�.
鈥� Allegation 2, paragraph 2.1(a) - Delete the word 'only鈥�.
The Panel took advice from the Clerk who referred them to Clause 4.12 of the 麻豆原创 Professional Conduct Procedure 2018:
4.12 Amendment of allegations
At any stage before making its findings of fact and having considered any representations by the parties as to the appropriateness of doing so, the Panel may permit or direct the amendment of the allegations.
The Panel advised the Parties that it was considering amending the allegations as set out above. The Parties had no objections.
The Panel directed the amendments set out above.
Mid-afternoon on the first hearing day, having heard much of the evidence and reviewed the allegations, the Panel identified a need to amend allegations 1.2 and 2.2 to refer to more appropriate paragraphs of the 麻豆原创 Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018. It invited submissions from each party; no objections were made. The Panel therefore directed:
1. Reference in Allegation 1.2 to paragraphs 9 and 55 of the 麻豆原创 Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018 be deleted and replaced with reference to paragraphs 43, 46 and 48 of the 麻豆原创 Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018.
2. Reference in Allegation 2.2 to paragraph 12 of the 麻豆原创 Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018 be deleted and replaced with reference to paragraph 48 of the 麻豆原创 Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018.
New/late evidence application
The Member had made a written application, dated 25 April Year 10, for new evidence to be admitted and considered as part of the hearing. The nature of the evidence was a redrafting of the Member鈥檚 previous submissions and re-ordering of her supporting evidence, which the Member explained was to make it more coherent. However, it also included new materials (articles relating to expert witness evidence) and an amended version of the witness statement from the Complainant鈥檚 ex-partner (摆鈥). The Member explained that these were submitted late because of a 摆鈥 and IT failures requiring her to replace her computer.
The Complainant was invited to respond to the application. She expressed sympathy for the Member鈥檚 problems but submitted these did not justify the late submission. She said the articles are irrelevant because the Member was not instructed as an expert witness by the 摆鈥. The Complainant said she only received this new information one week before the hearing. If the purpose of the amended version of 摆鈥 statement was to allow him to be called, the Complainant said she would require an adjournment for adjustments to be put in place as it would be inappropriate for her to be in the same meeting as 摆鈥 having 摆鈥
The Panel took advice from the Clerk. Having done so, and taking into account clause 4.7 of the 麻豆原创 Professional Conduct Procedure (PCP) and the Protocol on New Evidence, the Panel then gave its decision in three parts:
1. New statement/submissions from the Member. The Panel refused to allow this to be admitted for the following reasons:
鈥� There would be little or no disadvantage to the Member if the application were refused as the majority of evidence was already in the bundle.
鈥� Admission would disadvantage the Member as it would be likely to result in an adjournment for the Panel to fully read and consider the 79 pages of new evidence.
鈥� The Panel is capable of identifying the relevant evidence in the current version and, while a more coherent version may be desirable, the public interest in concluding the matter in a timely manner outweighed the limited benefit of a more coherent bundle.
2. 摆鈥 statement. The Panel allowed this to be admitted for the following reasons:
鈥� It was dated February Year 10 but submitted late in April Year 10 due to an oversight and the difficulties the Member had previously described.
鈥� It was only required for procedural reasons, to allow the Member to apply to call him as a witness, as an identical statement (less the statement of truth) was in the bundle.
鈥� There was, therefore, no detriment to the Complainant in admitting the statement as evidence.
鈥� It had been obtained (although not submitted) in time.
鈥� It was in the interests of fairness to allow the Member the opportunity to apply to call 摆鈥.
3. Articles. The Panel was advised that these were extracts from media reports of hearings at which expert witness evidence had been 摆鈥 considered. The Panel decide to refuse to admit these articles for the following reasons:
鈥� The Panel found that the evidence in the bundle indicated that the Member was not being called as an expert witness by the 摆鈥 and these articles were, therefore, not relevant.
鈥� As media reports and not 摆鈥 reports of the hearings, they were not a reliable source of 摆鈥 opinion.
Application to call 摆鈥
Having been informed that 摆鈥 amended witness statement was being allowed to be admitted, the Member applied to call him as a witness. The Member said he needed to 鈥榖e heard鈥� to achieve fairness and justice and because the Member was 鈥榥ot in a fit place to think鈥�.
The Clerk advised the Panel that 摆鈥 was not presented as an expert witness and, as such, was unable to give evidence of his opinion, only of facts that he had personally witnessed.
The Member submitted that his 鈥榩oint of view鈥� would be more weighty in person and that she wanted him to verbally present on her behalf.
The Complainant said that she had prepared a statement to address 摆鈥 evidence if he were called and would need to apply to submit it as late evidence if he were called. She also said she would require reasonable adjustments as, 摆鈥, she could not be 摆鈥. She submitted she would not be able to be present in the hearing at the same time as 摆鈥. Finally, the Complainant submitted that 摆鈥 was not able to give direct evidence of fact about the matters in dispute in the allegations.
The Panel decided to reject the Member鈥檚 application to call 摆鈥 as a witness for the following reasons:
鈥� He was only able to give evidence of fact and not present the Member鈥檚 case on her behalf.
鈥� Matters of fact he could testify to were either amply evidenced already (including in his statement) or not disputed.
鈥� Calling 摆鈥 would require an adjournment to arrange his attendance.
鈥� The public interest in concluding the proceedings in a timely manner outweighs the limited (if any) evidential benefit of calling 摆鈥.
Documents and evidence before the Panel
The Panel was provided with the following written materials:
鈥� The original complaint and all information submitted by the Complainant.
鈥� The IAC Summary Report
鈥� The formal response submitted by the Member Complained Against.
鈥� Further information provided by the parties including a witness statement by 摆鈥.
鈥� The relevant Ethical Framework(s).
鈥� The Professional Conduct Procedure 2018.
The Panel read all the above, then received oral evidence from the Complainant and the Member, including questioning by the Panel.
The Panel had to consider the following:
鈥� The allegations made.
鈥� The written and oral evidence.
鈥� What weight should be attached to the evidence.
鈥� On balance, whether the complaints should be upheld.
Findings
Allegation 1 鈥揢PHELD IN FULL
Allegation 1.1 鈥� PROVED
The Panel found that it was not in dispute, and the Member admitted, that she sent two letters dated 21 May Year 7 and 21 March Year 8 at 摆鈥 request and without the Complainant鈥檚 consent. Indeed, it found on the Member鈥檚 evidence that she didn鈥檛 ask the Complainant because she didn鈥檛 think the Complainant would consent.
Breach of confidentiality
The Panel accepted the Clerk鈥檚 advice that a person, particularly one acting in a professional role, owes a common law duty of confidentiality to anyone who shares information with them in confidence and this duty continued beyond the end of the client/counsellor relationship. It found that information shared by the Complainant with the Member during the counselling sessions the Complainant attended on her own and with 摆鈥 was shared in confidence. It concluded the Member owed the Complainant an ongoing duty of confidentiality in relation to that information.
The Panel noted the Member accepted the letters contained confidential information about the Complainant that the Member had received in confidence as the Complainant鈥檚 counsellor. The Panel reviewed the two letters (pages 12-37 and 109-117 of the bundle) and found that they each disclosed the Member鈥檚 professional opinion based on her work with the Complainant, the fact that the Complainant had been to therapy and specific proposed 摆鈥 amongst other pieces of information that were shared with the Member in confidence.
It therefore found the Member had breached the Complainant鈥檚 confidentiality.
Justification
The Member submitted that she was entitled to breach the Complainant鈥檚 confidentiality because she had serious concerns of an imminent risk of harm to the Complainant鈥檚 摆鈥. When questioned, the Member explained her concerns were about the 摆鈥 not having a relationship 摆鈥 in the future. She later described this as a chronic rather than acute risk. When asked why she didn鈥檛 contact the police, GP or social services 摆鈥 imminent risk if harm, the Member said it was because she didn鈥檛 think they would do anything.
The Panel found that the risk 摆鈥, as perceived by the Member, was not a risk of imminent 摆鈥 and therefore did not justify her breach of the Complainant鈥檚 confidentiality. Even if there had been an imminent risk of harm, the Member was only entitled to share information with those in a position 摆鈥 in the immediate term, which would not be a 摆鈥 via 摆鈥 and 摆鈥.
The Panel asked the Member if she discussed her decision to write these letters with her supervisor. The Member confirmed that she had and her supervisor advised her strongly not to. But the Member was so concerned that she chose not to follow that advice.
The Panel also considered whether the Member was directed by the 摆鈥 to disclose the information. However, it found it undisputed that the 摆鈥 had not issued 摆鈥.
The Panel therefore concluded the Member鈥檚 breach of confidentiality was not legally justified.
In support of 摆鈥
The Panel noted the contents of the two letters, which on several occasions agreed with 摆鈥 . The Member accepted in questioning that she had no new information about the Complainant鈥檚 摆鈥, other than that provided by 摆鈥 since she saw the Complainant in November Year 4. She also accepted that she took no steps to verify what 摆鈥 was telling her about the Complainant, saying it was not her role to accuse a client of lying. It was undisputed that the letters were provided at 摆鈥 request for use during the 摆鈥 between him and the Complainant.
The Panel found that, objectively, the letters were in support of 摆鈥.
Allegation 1.2 鈥揚ROVED
The Panel then applied its findings in relation to paragraph 1.1 to paragraphs 43, 46 and 48 of the 麻豆原创 Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018.
The Panel accepted the Clerk鈥檚 advice that it should give the commonly understood meaning to undefined terms in these paragraphs. The Panel therefore used the Oxford English Dictionary definition of 鈥榩robity鈥�:
鈥楾he quality or condition of having strong moral principles; integrity, good character; honesty, decency.鈥�
While the Panel accepted the Member had shown strong moral principles, it found that in choosing not to follow her supervisor鈥檚 advice, accepting 摆鈥 account at face value, adding her professional weight to his conclusions and choosing not to seek consent because she suspected it would be withheld was a failure to maintain the highest standards of probity.
The Panel agreed the only consideration the Member gave to the law was consulting with her supervisor, but she then chose to ignore their advice. The Member did not place any constraint on 摆鈥 use of the letters, but, on her evidence, only envisaged he鈥檇 use them in the 摆鈥. She therefore gave little or no thought to the possible misuse of them and harm that could cause the Complainant. Nor did she give any consideration to ensuring the information her letters were based on was verified before she gave her opinion 摆鈥.
The Panel agreed that a properly informed, reasonable member of the public would lose confidence in the profession if they were made aware of the Member鈥檚 behaviour.
Accordingly, the Panel found allegation 1.1 amounted to a breach of paragraphs 43, 46 and 48 of the 麻豆原创 Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018.
Allegation 2 鈥揢PHELD IN FULL
Allegation 2.1 鈥� PROVED
2.1(a). The Panel found that the email from 摆鈥 (page 140 of the bundle) proposed wording for the Member to use. The first letter uses some of that wording and follows the thrust of the whole suggested paragraph. The Member admitted that she based her letters partly on her knowledge of the Complainant from Year 3 鈥� Year 4 and partly on information from 摆鈥, without challenging him to verify the accuracy or checking with the Complainant. The Panel found she had presented the unverified views of the Complainant鈥檚 former partner and provided them greater weight by being supported by a professional counsellor.
摆鈥
2.1(b). It was not disputed the Appellant last saw the Member for therapy in November Year 4. The Member admitted she had no independent knowledge of what progress the Appellant had made in the almost three years since they had last met, only what came from 摆鈥. The Member opined that someone with the Appellant鈥檚 history was unlikely to recover without significant long term intervention. The Panel concluded the Member gave her professional opinion, in part, based on out of date information.
The Panel concluded allegations 2.1(a) and 2.1(b) were proved.
In relation to the stem of allegation 2.1, the Panel found that by presenting letters for 摆鈥 for 摆鈥, based on only his account, with no therapeutic information about the Complainant less than almost three years old, in breach of confidence and referring to diagnostic criteria in 摆鈥, the Member acted in a biased and unprofessional manner. It also found that the letters contained inaccuracies, in part due to relying on this poor quality information, but also through loose drafting. For example, on the Member鈥檚 evidence, the Member had not seen the Complainant in therapy since November Year 4 but had stated in each letter that she 鈥�met professionally on many occasions with 摆鈥 and 摆鈥 as clients in [her] private counselling practice over a number of periods of time from Year 1 to late Year 6.鈥�
The Panel found allegation 2.1 proved.
Allegation 2.2 鈥揚ROVED
The Panel then applied its findings in relation to paragraph 2.1 to paragraphs 43 and 48 of the 麻豆原创 Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018.
The Panel referred to its previous reasons in relation to allegation 1.2 and breaches of paragraphs 43 and 48 of the 麻豆原创 Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018.
It adopted those and added that the inaccuracies of her letters and basing them on unverified and out of date information demonstrated a failure to maintain high standards of probity. Similarly, the Panel agreed that a properly informed member of the public would lose confidence in the profession if they were to hear that a counsellor provided letters to 摆鈥 that were based on one-sided, unverified information and 3 year old clinical information with no knowledge of progress in the interim.
It found Allegation 2.2 proved in full.
Allegation 3 鈥揢PHELD IN FULL
Allegation 3.1 鈥� PROVED
The Panel found it was not in dispute that in the letter dated 21 March Year 8, the Member stated with regard to the Complainant 鈥榓nd that she has 摆鈥 which may possibly include 摆鈥鈥�. The Member gave evidence that she had no training or qualification to make psychiatric diagnoses. However, she denied that it was such. She said it was simply her opinion.
The Panel noted the full paragraph read:
鈥�My professional opinion of their relationship rests on my belief that 摆鈥 has been 摆鈥, and that she 摆鈥 which may possibly include 摆鈥; but 摆鈥 does not believe this. 摆鈥 is treatable with good outcomes nowadays. But only if a person seeks appropriate therapeutic treatment.鈥�
The Panel concluded that objectively, the Member used diagnostic language, discussing treatment and prognosis. By using the words 鈥榮he has鈥� in this context, and after setting out in detail her professional credentials and experience, the Member objectively held out what she said as a diagnosis.
The Panel therefore found allegation 3.1 proved.
Allegation 3.2 鈥揚ROVED
The Panel then applied its findings in relation to paragraph 3.1 to paragraphs 13, 43 and 48 of the 麻豆原创 Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018.
The Panel found that by providing 摆鈥 with the letters for use 摆鈥 and charging for them (admitted by the Member), the Member was providing a service. It found that providing what was objectively a diagnosis when not qualified to do so was below fundamental professional standards, especially as the Member had at no time referred the Complainant for assessment and diagnosis of 摆鈥 or 摆鈥.
To objectively provide a diagnosis when not qualified, similarly, amounted to a failure to maintain high standards of probity and, in the Panel鈥檚 opinion, was likely to undermine the public鈥檚 confidence in the profession.
Allegation 3.2 was upheld in full.
Decision
Accordingly, the Panel was unanimous in its decision that the Complainant had proved, on the balance of probabilities, that the Member had failed to comply with Professional Standards, in particular paragraphs 13, 43, 46 and 48 of the 麻豆原创 Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018.
Sanction
The Panel reconvened on 19 September Year 10 to consider what, if any, sanction is appropriate having considered the Member鈥檚 submissions on sanction.
The Panel reminded itself of its findings above. It also considered the guidance within 麻豆原创 Protocol on Sanctions (PR14) and reminded itself of its powers of sanction under Article 5.12 of the 麻豆原创 Professional Conduct Procedure 2018.
The Panel concluded that the Member鈥檚 submissions were an aggravating, not mitigating factor. The Member did not accept the Panel鈥檚 findings, failed to show insight or understanding of her legal duty of confidentiality and did not acknowledge the harm her conduct had caused. 摆鈥
Given the powers available to it as a practice review track panel, the Panel concluded that the Member鈥檚 conduct that it had found proven warranted the following sanction:
1. Within four months of the date of this letter, the Member is to provide the 麻豆原创 with:
a. Evidence of successful completion of 24 hours of continuous professional development (CPD) focused on:
i. the legal duty of confidentiality, including but not limited to maintaining confidentiality when working with couples and clients experiencing domestic abuse (minimum 12 hours);
ii. ethical decision making including but not limited to use of supervision and working within the limits of her professional competence (minimum 12 hours).
N.B. Evidence should include a log of what CPD has been accessed, when and from where, and a summary of what the Member learnt from each piece of CPD.
b. A personal statement demonstrating specific changes/improvements in the Member鈥檚 practice that;
i. reflects on what went wrong with the Complainant and shows acceptance of responsibility for what the Panel found went wrong;
ii. demonstrates a deep understanding of the potential harm to clients and the reputation of the 麻豆原创 and counselling professions arising from breaches of confidentiality and acknowledging the harm that was caused to the Complainant;
iii. details what she has learned, how she has applied that learning and what she has changed to prevent repetition of what went wrong.
c. A genuine and sincere letter of apology that accepts responsibility for the events found proved by the Panel and recognises the distress caused to the Complainant.
d. Confirmation that the Member has discussed her CPD and personal statement with her supervisor.
Following the conclusion of the independent review, the Registrar was instructed to amend paragraph 2.1(b) of the determination on the facts of the Panel. This change has been made on the basis that the Independent Reviewer found that there was no evidence of such evidence being given by the Appellant in written evidence.
Where ellipses [ . . . ] are displayed, they indicate an omission of text)
听
听