Mr Daniel Wright

Preliminary Matters

1. Mr Collins made an application to amend the particulars of allegation to correct various typographical errors. The application was not opposed by Ms Williamson on behalf of the Registrant. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel considered that the proposed amendments were necessary to enable the Panel to determine the issues on the evidence and could be made without injustice to the Registrant. Accordingly, the Panel granted the application. The amendments are shown in bold in the particulars of allegation set out above.

2. Ms Williamson applied for the entire hearing to be conducted in private in order to protect the private life of the Registrant, his family and Service User 1. She submitted that the evidence contained explicit and detailed sexual content, the publication of which would potentially be prejudicial to the Registrant’s family and particularly to his two young children. She further submitted that such matters were at the core of the HCPC’s case and that the only practical course was to direct that the entire hearing should be conducted in private. Mr Collins opposed the application. He reminded the Panel that the allegations were already in the public domain, having been published on the HCPC website. With regard to the detailed sexual references, he submitted that the Panel could direct that these should be heard in private; likewise, any matters relating to health.

3. The Panel took into account the submissions of both parties. The Panel had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on Conducting Hearings in Private and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel recognised the general principle set out in rule 10 of the Conduct and Competence Committee (Procedure) Rules 2003 that hearings should be conducted in public. The Panel took the view that much of the detailed evidence as to sexual matters was not necessary to the issues to be determined. To the extent that reference was made to such matters, they should be heard in private; likewise, any matters relating to health. The Panel determined that the hearing should otherwise be conducted in public.

Background

4. The Registrant worked as a Physiotherapist in a private clinic from 2016 until October 2017, when his employment terminated due to restructuring.

5. On 20 May 2020, the HCPC received a referral by email from Service User 1, who had been a patient of the Registrant. She alleged that in April 2017 she began a sexual affair with the Registrant, which he initiated in April 2017 whilst she was his patient, and continued until February 2018, when her husband found out about it.

6. Service User 1 also alleged that from October 2017 the Registrant demanded money from her and initially said that if she did not pay him, he would cease to see her. As a result, she made payments to him amounting to £29,585 between 5 October 2017 and 22 February 2018.

7. Service User 1 alleged that the Registrant had continued to contact her over the two years following February 2018, trying to get her to change her bank account in case her husband found out about the payments. Service User 1 alleged that the Registrant had pressured and harassed her to send him a letter stating that the monies were gifts. She described how the alleged events had had a significant impact [redacted]. Following this, she went to the police and an investigation was launched into whether she had been the victim of controlling and coercive behaviour on the part of the Registrant.

8. In the course of the police investigation, the Registrant was arrested and interviewed in relation to possible offences of controlling and coercive behaviour and on suspicion of harassment. He was interviewed by police on 4 June 2020. No criminal charges were brought against him and the police case was closed with no further action.

9. The referral made by the Registrant to the HCPC on 20 May 2020 concerning the Registrant resulted in this hearing.

Decision on Facts

10. The Panel was provided with the following documents:

• The HCPC’s hearing bundle containing Service User 1’s witness statement and exhibits including statements which she and the Registrant had made to the police

• The Registrant’s bundle of documents including his reflective statement, exhibits and supportive testimonials

• The Registrant’s witness statement provided for these proceedings

• A Case Summary from the HCPC

In the course of the hearing, the Panel was then provided with:

• A schedule of anonymity

• Photos from Service User 1 and the Registrant

• Service User 1’s bank statements

11. The Panel heard oral evidence from both Service User 1 and the Registrant.

12. The Panel was mindful that the burden of proof was on the HCPC and that the civil standard of proof applied, so the particulars of the allegation must be proved on the balance of probabilities.

13. The Panel took into account the submissions of Mr Collins on behalf of the HCPC and Ms Williamson on behalf of the Registrant. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

14. The Panel made the following findings of fact:

Particular 1

You did not maintain professional boundaries and/or communicate appropriately with Service User 1, in that while Service User 1 was a patient receiving physiotherapy at Village Physiotherapy Clinic in Orpington (“the Clinic”) you:

a. during physiotherapy sessions on 7 March 2017 and/ or 21 March 2017, disclosed information about your personal life to Service User 1;

b. During and/or after a physiotherapy session on 21 March 2017, obtained Service User 1’s telephone number for personal reasons unconnected to physiotherapy treatment;

c. Between 22 March 2017 and 4 April 2017, sent Service User 1 WhatsApp message communications of a sexual nature;

d. Between 4 April 2017 and 10 April 2017:

e. Arranged for Service User 1 to meet you;

ii. Asked Service User 1 to pick you up and/ or accompanied Service User 1 in a motor vehicle to Farnborough Common and /or walked with Service User 1 around the common;

iii. Told Service User 1 ‘this isn’t an affair, its just sex’ or words to that effect;

iv. Kissed Service User 1;

e. On one or more occasions between 11 April 2017 and 20 April 2017, before, during and or after physiotherapy treatment sessions at the Clinic, engaged in sexual activity with Service User 1;

f. On one or more occasions between 4 April 2017 and 20 April 2017, engaged in sexual activity with Service User 1 via webcam and/or video calls.

15. At the outset of the hearing, the Registrant denied the stem of the allegation that he did not maintain professional boundaries and/or communicate appropriately with Service User.

Particular 1a: Not proved

16. With regard to particular 1a the Registrant admitted that he disclosed information about his personal life to the Registrant during physiotherapy sessions. The issue for the Panel to determine was whether he thereby did not maintain professional boundaries or communicate appropriately with Service User 1. The Registrant and Service User 1 agreed in their evidence that they had general chat about such matters as housing and the Registrant’s interest in motorbikes, an interest which he shared with Service User 1’s husband. The Registrant told the Panel that he engaged in such conversation to put Service User 1 at ease and establish a rapport. Neither the Registrant nor Service User 1 suggested anything of an intimate nature was discussed and Service User 1 expressed no disquiet about these interactions, saying that these appointments were “normal” and professional. The Panel was of the view that there was nothing in the exchange of such information that breached professional boundaries or was inappropriate. Accordingly, particular 1a is not proved.

Particular 1b: Not proved

17. With regard to particular 1b the Registrant denied that he obtained the Registrant’s telephone number on 21 March 2017 and asserted that this did not occur until the final physiotherapy session on 20 April 2017. The Panel considered that the date of exchanging this information was immaterial, nor was it significant whether the Registrant obtained Service User 1’s telephone number or vice-versa. The effect of their evidence was that telephone numbers were exchanged because Service User 1 was aware that the Registrant was in need of furniture for a flat which he was about to occupy above his place of work and Service User 1 knew that her neighbour wished to dispose of a sofa. The exchange of telephone numbers was to facilitate the transfer of the sofa from the neighbour to the Registrant. Service User 1’s evidence was that the Registrant gave her his number and it was she who then contacted him by text. In the Panel’s judgement, this was not inappropriate and did not breach professional boundaries. Accordingly, particular 1b is not proved.

Particulars 1c, 1d, 1e: Not proved

18. The Registrant denied particulars 1c, 1d, 1e and 1f in their entirety. It is his case that he did not engage in a sexual relationship with Service User 1 before early June 2017 after she had ceased to be his patient. The dates referred to in these particulars are of critical importance because they all relate to the period when Service User 1 was the Registrant’s patient.

19. The only evidence in support of these particulars was provided by Service User 1. There was no other evidence to corroborate her account, which was disputed by the Registrant.

20. The first recorded account of Service User 1’s relationship with the Registrant appears in her interview by the police on 10 May 2020, some three years after the events referred to [redacted]. She maintained that her sexual relationship with the Registrant started when she was his patient in about March 2017.

21. By contrast, the Registrant when interviewed by the police maintained that his relationship with Service User 1 was purely professional whilst she was his patient and only became sexual thereafter. He said that shortly after she had ceased to be his patient, they had exchanged texts about his getting some furniture. This then led to a walk where their relationship became more intimate.

22. The Panel was aware of the need for cogent evidence to support such a serious allegation (while the same standard of proof applied). Whilst Service User 1 was adamant that she had sexual intercourse with the Registrant on the last two physiotherapy sessions in a treatment room at the clinic, the Panel was mindful of the need to avoid concluding that, because a witness has confidence in her recollection and is honest, her recollection is likely to be true. The Panel noted that Service User 1 was uncertain of several key dates and eventually admitted that the dates given in her statement might not be correct. The Registrant’s evidence as to when any intimacy began was consistent with his account when interviewed by the police on 4 June 2020. Faced with conflicting accounts from the two witnesses with no corroborative evidence in support of the Registrant’s evidence and noting her confusion and unreliability about dates, the Panel was unable to find particulars 1c, 1d, 1e or 1f proved on the balance of probabilities.

Particular 1f: Not proved

23. In her witness statement, Service User 1 stated that webcam sex with the Registrant occurred from May 2017. There was no evidence to support the allegation that it occurred between 4 April 2017 and 20 April 2017 as alleged. This particular is not proved.

Particular 2

You did not maintain professional boundaries and/or communicate appropriately with Service User 1, in that after Service User 1 had ceased being a patient receiving physiotherapy at Village Physiotherapy Clinic in Orpington you:

a. Between 1 May 2017 and 30 April 2020, sent Service User 1 WhatsApp message communications of a sexual nature;

b. On one or more occasions between 1 May 2017 and 30 April 2020, engaged in sexual activity with Service User 1 via webcam and/or video calls;

c. On one or more occasions between 1 June 2018 and 30 April 2020, asked Service User 1 to send you naked photographs;

d. On one occasion between 1 August 2019 and 31 August 2019 8, sent Service User 1 a photograph of yourself with part of your genitals gentiles exposed;

e. On one or more occasions between 1 May 2017 and 11 February 2018:

i. Arranged for Service User 1 to meet you in a private flat;

ii. Engaged in sexual activity with Service User 1 in a private flat.

f. On a date unknown in September 2017, engaged in sexual activity with Service User 1 at the Clinic.

24. At the outset of the hearing the Registrant denied in relation to the entirety of particular 2 that he did not maintain professional boundaries or communicate appropriately with Service User 1.

Particular 2a, 2b: Proved

25. With regard to particulars 2a and 2b the Registrant denied that the WhatsApp messages started as early as 1 May 2017 but otherwise admitted these particulars.

26. In the Panel’s judgement, it was immaterial whether the WhatsApp messages started at a date later than 1 May 2017, because it is alleged that the messages were sent “between 1 May 2017 and 30 April 2020”, which was established on the evidence.

27. Although the Registrant denied at the outset that he did not maintain professional boundaries, when questioned by the Panel he acknowledged that his conduct in sending Service User 1 WhatsApp messages of a sexual nature and asking her to send him naked photographs was “absolutely unprofessional”. However, he sought to rely on the fact that the HCPC Code of Conduct does not expressly outlaw such behaviour in relation to former patients. In the Panel’s judgement, the Registrant’s engagement in sexual activity with Service User 1 within a few weeks of her ceasing to be his patient plainly breached professional boundaries and was entirely inappropriate. Particulars 2a and 2b are therefore proved.

Particular 2c: Proved

28. Service User 1 gave evidence in support of this particular, which the Registrant did not deny. The Panel was satisfied that this was inappropriate and in breach of professional boundaries.

Particular 2d: Not proved

29. Service User 1 gave evidence that she received from the Registrant a photograph of himself with his genitals exposed whilst she was on a family camping holiday sometime in August 2019. The Registrant denied this allegation. The photograph was not available and there was no corroborative evidence. Particular 2d was not proved on the balance of probabilities.

Particular 2e: Proved

30. With regard to particular 2e, there was evidence from both Service User 1 and the Registrant that he arranged to meet her in a private flat where they engaged in sexual activity. In the Panel’s judgement, this was inappropriate and a breach of professional boundaries. Particulars 2e(i) and 2e(ii) are proved.

Particular 2f: Proved

31. The Registrant denied this particular. Service User 1 gave evidence that in September 2017 the Registrant sent her a WhatsApp message to meet her in the clinic. She gave detailed and circumstantial evidence about being first told by the Registrant that she would have to wait as the receptionist was still there and then that she would have to wait longer as his girlfriend, who was upstairs in the flat, wanted to come down to the clinic. He did not explain why she wanted to come downstairs. Service User 1 went on to give detailed evidence about her sexual encounter with the Registrant on that occasion. [redacted] On the basis of this evidence, the Panel found, on the balance of probability, that this incident occurred as alleged and was in breach of professional boundaries.

Particular 3

You caused and/or encouraged Service User 1 to make payments to you in that:

a. On a date unknown in October 2017, you messaged Service User 1 stating ‘if you want to see me again you will have to pay’ or words to that effect;

b. Between 1 October 2017 and 22 February 2018:

i. On one or more occasions you sent messages to Service User 1 asking Service User 1 pay you money;

ii. You received payments totalling £29,585 from Service User 1, as set out in Schedule A.

32. At the outset of the hearing the Registrant denied particular 3a and 3b(i). With regard to particular 3b(ii), he admitted the fact of receiving payments totalling £29,585 from Service User 1 but denied that, in so doing, he had caused and/or encouraged Service User 1 to make payments to him.

Particular 3a: Not proved

33. Service User 1 alleged that she received this message from the Registrant. He denied it. There was no corroborative evidence in support of Service User 1’s account. The Panel was unable to find this proved to the required standard.

Particular 3b: Proved

34. This was denied by the Registrant at the outset. Service User 1’s evidence was that she gave in to the Registrant’s constant and persistent demands for money. It was established by reference to Service User 1’s bank statements that she paid the Registrant £29,585 by bank transfers between 5 October 2017 and 29 February 2018. The Registrant admitted receiving this money and “hinting” that he wanted it but denied asking for it. He said that he merely had to mention something that he wanted for Service User 1 to make a transfer. The Panel found that given the pattern that was quickly established, even on his evidence, his messages amounted to requests asking for money. The Panel determined that the Registrant must have told Service User 1 how much money he required for the various purchases he made and bills he paid in order to receive the required amount of money. The Panel was satisfied that particulars 3b(i) and 3b(ii) were both proved.

Particular 4

You caused and/or encouraged Service User 1 to remove and/or conceal evidence that Service User 1 made payments to you in that:

a. On one or more occasions between 5 October 2017 and 30 April 2020, you asked Service User 1 to write a letter to state incorrectly the money was a gift;

b. On one or more occasions between 1 February 2018 and 30 April 2020, you asked Service User 1 to change bank accounts;

c. On or around 8 April 2020 1, you asked Service User 1 to delete WhatsApp messages sent between you and Service User 1.

35. At the outset of the hearing the Registrant denied particular 4.

Particular 4a: Not proved

36. This particular alleges that the Registrant asked Service User 1 to write a letter “to state incorrectly the money was a gift”. Both the Registrant and Service User 1 in their evidence acknowledged that her payments to him were gifts. Therefore, this allegation is based on a false premise and is accordingly not proved.

Particular 4b: Proved

37. Service User 1 gave evidence in support of this particular. In his evidence the Registrant admitted that he asked Service User 1 to change bank accounts to conceal evidence from Person 2 of her transfers of money to the Registrant. Accordingly, particular 4b is proved.

Particular 4c: Not proved

38. The Panel was not satisfied on the evidence that the Registrant asked Service User 1 to delete WhatsApp messages sent between them “to remove and/or conceal evidence that Service User 1 made payments” to the Registrant. Accordingly, particular 4c is not proved to the necessary standard.

Particular 5

You attempted to prevent matters detailed in paragraph 1, 2 and 3 above being reported to the Health and Care Professions Council (‘HCPC’) in that you:

a. Between 27 February 2018 9 and 31 December 2018:

i. Expressed concern to Service User 1 that this matter would be reported;

ii. Asked Service User 1 to contact the HCPC and to inform the HCPC incorrectly that nothing had happened between you and Service User 1;

iii. Asked Service User 1 not to report you to the HCPC;

iv. Asked Service User 1 to prevent Service User 1’s husband from reporting you to the HCPC;

b. Between 8 April 2020 and 10 March 2021, asked Service User 1 to confirm that if money was repaid that there would be no contact ‘or other action taken’ or words to that effect and that you needed Service User 1’s ‘word on that’ or words to that effect.

Particular 5a(i): Proved

39. At the outset of the hearing, the Registrant admitted particular 5a(i) but not that he thereby attempted to prevent matters being reported to the HCPC. The Panel was provided with a copy of a message from the Registrant to Service User 1 in relation to his repaying her the money which she had given him. In that message, he said “And that will be the end of it? No contact from you or other action taken.” When questioned by the Panel, the Registrant admitted that he had been afraid of a referral to the HCPC, knowing it would launch an investigation into his relationship with Service User 1. In the Panel’s judgement, the reference to “no other action taken” was on the balance of probabilities an attempt by the Registrant to prevent details of their relationship and payments of money being reported to the HCPC.

Particulars 5a(ii)-(iv): Proved

40. The Registrant denied these particulars. Service User 1 gave evidence in support. She stated that her husband had phoned the HCPC. When questioned by the Panel, the Registrant stated that Service User 1 had told him that she had found the HCPC’s telephone number on Person 2’s telephone. The Registrant said that he had asked her to telephone the HCPC to find out what had been reported. He admitted being fearful of being reported to the HCPC and not wishing to telephone the HCPC himself, thinking it could “raise suspicion”. The Panel considered his evidence to be tantamount to expressing the desire that Service User 1 should do whatever she could to prevent their sexual and financial relationship being reported to the HCPC. On that basis, particulars 5a(ii), (iii) and (iv) are found proved.

Particular 5b: Proved

41. At the outset of the hearing, the Registrant admitted that the communication referred to in this particular took place but denied that he thereby attempted to prevent matters being concealed from the HCPC. In the Panel’s judgement, the inference to be drawn from the words “or other action taken” would include reporting matters to the HCPC in the light of the Registrant’s admitted fear of that step being taken. The Registrant was unable to provide a plausible explanation for any other meaning.

Particular 6

The matters set out in paragraphs 1 and/or 2 above were sexually motivated.

42. The Panel has already found particular 1 of the allegation not proved and therefore sexual motivation is not relevant to particular 1.

43. The Panel finds the matters proved in particular 2 to be sexually motivated.

Particular 7

The matters as set out in Paragraphs 3, 4 and or 5 were:

a. Misleading; and/ or

b. Dishonest.

44. The Registrant denied being dishonest or misleading. The Panel found that he was not dishonest in relation to any of the matters alleged in particular 3. The fact that he requested money of Service User 1 and that she gave whatever he requested was not by objective standards dishonest.

45. With regard to particular 4b, the Panel found that the Registrant was dishonest in seeking to persuade Service User 1 to conceal from Person 2 the fact of her having made payments to the Registrant. This was plainly an attempt to effect a deception which an ordinary, decent member of the public would consider to be dishonest. However, the Panel found no dishonesty in relation to particulars 4a and 4c, which it found not proved.

46. The Panel found that the Registrant was dishonest in relation to particular 5 in its entirety. His attempts to prevent his sexual and financial relationship with Service User 1, which he knew to be wholly unprofessional, from being reported to his Regulator constituted an attempted cover-up and therefore was by objective standards dishonest.

No information currently available

On Days 1-2, the hearing took place in person with one party calling in virtually. Days 3-4 were conducted virtually.

Due to reconvene to hand down on Grounds and Impairment and decide on Sanction; date TBC.

History of Hearings for Mr Daniel Wright