Miss Suzanne Walton

Preliminary Matters:

1. The Panel was convened to undertake the final hearing of the HCPC’s allegation against the Registrant, Ms Suzanne Walton, a Practitioner Psychologist. The hearing was initially listed for five days commencing on Tuesday, 24 May 2022. On 30 May 2022, the hearing was adjourned part-heard. The hearing was relisted to be completed on 19 and 20 July 2022.

Privacy Application

2. At the commencement of the hearing, an application was made that the entire hearing should be conducted in private. The basis of the application advanced on behalf of the Registrant was it was necessary to protect the private lives of both Service User A and the Registrant. The HCPC supported the application, but on the basis that the private life of Service User A required the direction. The Panel gave careful consideration to this application and kept in mind not only the importance of open justice but also that there was a power to direct that only part of a hearing should be conducted in private. The conclusion of the Panel was that the interests of Service User A necessitated the direction sought; notwithstanding the anonymisation afforded by describing her as “Service User A”, the particular circumstances of this case could give rise to her being identifiable were the hearing to be conducted in public. This risk could not sensibly be avoided by holding only part of the hearing in private.

Amendment of the Allegation

3. The Presenting Officer made an application to amend the allegation to include in particular 4 (which alleges that the facts amounted to misconduct), particular 3 (which alleges that certain facts were sexually motivated). No objection was made to the application and the Panel acceded to it.

Disclosure Application

4. On behalf of the Registrant, Ms McCartney made an application that was described as one for disclosure of documents. The referral to the HCPC had been made to the HCPC by a person who was described as “the Complainant”, a person who was not treated as a witness by the HCPC. The Complainant is a therapist with whom Service User A had therapy after her relationship with the Registrant ended. In the document by which he referred the Registrant to the HCPC, the Complainant stated that Service User A had referred to her relationship with the Registrant in an email, the date of which he stated, and also in a number of therapy sessions, which were identifiable by the way they were described by him. The application on behalf of the Registrant was advanced on the basis that the email and the Complainant’s notes of the relevant therapy sessions were relevant to the issues in the case. Neither the HCPC nor its Solicitors were in possession of the documents, and so the issue was whether a production order should be made to ensure that they could be made available to the Registrant. This was an issue that needed to be decided before the hearing could proceed further.

5. It is not necessary in this determination to state more than the Panel considered the issue in accordance with the approach advised for such matters and concluded that it was necessary to make a production order to ensure that the Registrant would receive a fair hearing. At the end of the first day of the hearing a production order was made. Before the commencement of the second day they had been made available, and after a further delay while they were considered, the case proceeded. This issue did, however, result in over a day of the hearing being lost.

Registrant’s response to the amended allegation

6. When the Registrant was invited to respond to the amended allegation, on her behalf Ms McCartney responded as follows:

⦁ Particular 1(a)(i) was denied.

⦁ Particular 1(a)(ii) was admitted, but on the basis that the meeting was in February 2013.

⦁ Particular 1(a)(iii) was admitted, but on the basis that the relationship did not commence until end of March 2013.

⦁ Particular 1(b) was admitted.

⦁ The stem of particular 1 (alleging that the Registrant did not maintain appropriate boundaries with Service User A) was admitted in respect of the admitted sub-particulars.

⦁ Particular 2(a) was admitted.

⦁ Particular 2(b) was denied.

⦁ The stem of particular 2 (alleging that the Registrant failed to promote and protect the interests of Service User A) was admitted in relation to admitted sub-particular (a).

⦁ Particular 3 (alleging sexual motivation) was admitted in relation to 1(a)(iii) (entering into a sexual relationship) and 1(b) (redacted), but denied in relation to particulars 1(a)(i) and 1(a)(ii).

⦁ Particular 4 (alleging misconduct) was admitted.

⦁ Particular 5 (alleging current impairment of fitness to practise) was denied.

7. After the evidence had been given, Ms McCartney re-visited the issue of the Registrant’s admissions, and stated that, with regard to particular 1(a)(i), the Registrant admitted that she had provided Service User A with her personal mobile telephone number, albeit she denied providing it in January 2013, or at the stage contended for by Service User A.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to suspend the registration of Miss Suzanne Walton for a period of 12 months from the date this Order comes into effect.

APPEAL

An appeal has been lodged in this case.

The Interim Suspension Order imposed by the panel (see reasons below) will remain in place until the appeal is considered, subject to a maximum period of 18 months.

Application for an Interim Order

1. After the Panel handed down its decision on sanction, it allowed the parties time to consider it before reconvening in the virtual hearing room. When it reconvened, the Presenting Officer made an interim order application to cover the appeal period.

2. Ms McCartney confirmed that the Registrant had been put on notice that in the event of a substantive suspension order being made, an application for an interim order might follow. That being so, the Panel accepted that there was jurisdiction to consider the matter.

3. The HCPC’s application for an interim order was based upon the Panel’s substantive decision that there is a risk of repetition and the wider public interest considerations. That being so, it was submitted, an interim order is necessary to protect members of the public and is otherwise in the public interest. The Presenting Officer submitted that a decision not to make an interim order would be inconsistent with the Panel’s reasoning leading to the imposition of a substantive suspension order.

4. Ms McCartney made no submissions in opposition to the HCPC’s application.

5. Notwithstanding the absence of positive opposition to the application, the Panel considered whether the circumstances merited the imposition of an interim order. In making this judgement the Panel acknowledged that the default position established by the legislation is that when a substantive sanction is imposed there should be no restriction on a registrant’s ability to practise while their appeal rights remain outstanding. The conclusion of the Panel was that they do. The risk of repetition results in an interim order being necessary for protection of members of the public and, that risk also engages the wider public interest considerations of the second ground.

6. Having decided that an interim order is required, the Panel considered whether the risks necessitating it could be addressed by the imposition of interim conditions of practice. The conclusion of the Panel was that they could not, the reasons for that decision being those that resulted in the Panel rejecting conditions of practice as a substantive sanction.

7. It followed that an interim suspension order is required. As to the length of that order, the Panel determined that is should be for 18 months. If the Registrant does not appeal, then the interim order will simply fall away when the time during which she could have appealed passes. If she does appeal, then the final determination of that appeal could take a length of time that would require the duration of the order to be 18 months.

Interim Order: The Panel makes an Interim Suspension Order under Article 31(2) of the Health Professions Order 2001, the same being necessary to protect members of the public and being otherwise in the public interest.

This order will expire: (if no appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order) upon the expiry of the period during which such an appeal could be made; (if an appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order) the final determination of that appeal, subject to a maximum period of 18 months.

History of Hearings for Miss Suzanne Walton