Mr Ian Stephen
Please note that the decision can take up to 5 working days to be uploaded onto the HCPTS website. Please contact one of our Hearings Team Managers via tsteam@hcpts-uk.org or +44 (0)808 164 3084 if you require any further information.
Allegation
As a registered Psychologist (PYL19696) your fitness to practise is impaired by reason
of misconduct. In that between January 2020 and May 2020:
1. You practised as a registered Practitioner Psychologist whilst your registration was
subject to an Interim Suspension Order, in that:
a. On or around 10 January 2020, you offered to speak to Service User A on Facebook
Messenger and/or LinkedIn after Service User A approached you for your professional
advice and/or opinion on LinkedIn.
b. While exchanging messages with Service User A on Facebook Messenger, you
offered your professional advice and/or opinion and/or support to Service User A.
2. On or around 13 January 2020, while exchanging messages with Service User A
on Facebook messenger, you:
a. stated that “I have completely stopped working due to finding difficulty driving longer
distances after my hip replacement” or words to that effect; and/or
b. did not disclose to Service User A that your registration was subject to an Interim
Suspension Order, which prevented you from practising and/ or providing professional
advice.
3. You did not maintain appropriate professional boundaries and/or abused your
position of trust in relation to Service User A, in that you:
a. persistently and/or excessively messaged Service User A both on and/or
outside of Facebook Messenger
b. continued to message Service User A despite them indicating on one or more
occasions that your persistent messages were negatively impacting their mental
health and/or that they did not wish to engage in further contact.
c. formed an inappropriate sexual and/or emotional relationship with Service User A.
4. You conduct in Particulars 1 and/or 2 was dishonest.
5. Your conduct in Particulars 1 and/or 2 and/or 3 was sexually motivated.
6. The matters set out in Particulars 1 - 5 constitute misconduct.
7. By reason of your misconduct your fitness to practise is impaired.
Finding
Preliminary Matters
Service
1. The Panel was satisfied on the basis of the documents contained in the service bundle that the Registrant was served with notice of this hearing by email dated 16 November 2022 in accordance with the Rules. Delivery of that email was confirmed on the same date.
Proceeding in the absence of the Registrant
2. Mr Bridges on behalf of the HCPC made an application for the hearing to proceed in the absence of the Registrant under Rule 11. He referred to an email dated 6 January 2023 from the Registrant to the HCPC in which the Registrant stated that he “definitely” did not wish to attend the hearing and referred to his previous submissions to the HCPC as reflecting his position. Mr Bridges submitted that the Registrant had intentionally absented himself from this hearing and had waived his right to attend.
3. The Panel took into account the HCPTS Practice Note on “Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. On the basis of the information referred to above, the Panel concluded that the Registrant had deliberately absented himself and waived his right to attend the hearing. The Registrant had not applied for an adjournment and the Panel considered that the Registrant would be unlikely to attend if the hearing of this case were adjourned to another date. Accordingly, no useful purpose would be served by an adjournment. The Panel considered that it was in the public interest for these proceedings to be determined without delay. The Panel therefore decided to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Registrant.
Application for hearing in private
4. Mr Bridges applied for part of the hearing to be conducted in private to the extent that it concerned the health and/or private life of Service User A and/or the Registrant.
5. 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 Service User A was a vulnerable witness in that she was the alleged victim of sexual abuse. The Panel decided that her evidence should be heard in private but that the hearing should otherwise be conducted in public.
Background
6. The Registrant is and was at all material times registered with the HCPC as a Practitioner Psychologist.
7. In January 2018 Service User A was referred by her solicitors to the Registrant in his capacity as a Practitioner Psychologist to prepare a report on Service User A for the purpose of court proceedings in which Service User A was a defendant. The Registrant met Service User A on 8 January 2018 at his offices. The Registrant conducted a clinical interview followed by an assessment of cognitive functioning and current psychological state. The Registrant then sent his report on Service User A to her solicitors. The Registrant had no further involvement with Service User A at that time.
8. Between 10 May 2019 and 17 December 2020, the Registrant was subject to an Interim Suspension Order by a panel of the HCPC in relation to unrelated fitness to practise proceedings.
9. In January 2020 Service User A contacted the Registrant via LinkedIn in the hope that he might provide her with advice and support in relation to ongoing issues in her life and personal relationships.
10. The Registrant replied that he would like to speak to Service User A and proposed that they should communicate on Facebook Messenger.
11. There followed a sequence of communications between the Registrant and Service User A which, at the Registrant’s instigation, became increasingly intimate and sexualised in content.
12. On 13 March 2020 Service User A contacted the HCPC on the advice of her GP and psychotherapist concerning her online communications with the Registrant.
13. On 26 April 2020 Service User A provided the HCPC with messages which she had exchanged with the Registrant between 9 January 2020 and 25 April 2020 on LinkedIn and Facebook Messenger. She also provided images and pictures that were exchanged between them during that time.
14. The material provided by Service User A to the HCPC resulted in these proceedings.
Decision on Facts
15. The Panel was provided with the following documents:
• The HCPC’s hearing bundle containing Service User A’s witness statement and exhibits including text messages and images which she and the Registrant exchanged between 9 January 2020 and 25 April 2020;
• The witness statement of JO of the HCPC to the effect that the Registrant was subject to an Interim Suspension Order from 10 May 2019 to 17 December 2020 with exhibits by way of confirmation;
• The expert report of Dr Ben Donner, Clinical Psychologist, dated 22 July 2021 and his addendum report dated 9 March 2022.
• The Registrant’s correspondence with the HCPC in response to the allegation and his curriculum vitae.
• An extract conviction relating to Service User A under Section 39 of the Criminal Justice & Licensing (Scotland) Act 2101 in respect of a domestic abuse offence.
• A copy of a letter from Service User A’s solicitors to Service User A explaining the nature of the offence to which the extract conviction related.
• A copy of handwritten letter sent by the Registrant to Service User A with a photograph of the cover and title of a book which he sent her.
16. The Panel heard oral evidence from both Service User A and Dr Donner.
17. 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.
18. The Panel took into account the submissions of Mr Bridges on behalf of the HCPC and the written submissions of the Registrant. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.
19. The Panel made the following findings of fact:
1. You practised as a registered Practitioner Psychologist whilst your registration was subject to an Interim Suspension Order, in that:
a. On or around 10 January 2020, you offered to speak to Service User A on Facebook Messenger and/or LinkedIn after Service User A approached you for your professional advice and/or opinion on LinkedIn: Proved
b. While exchanging messages with Service User A on Facebook Messenger, you offered your professional advice and/or opinion and/or support to Service User A: Proved
20. With regard to particular 1 the Panel was provided by the HCPC with evidence that the Registrant was subject to an Interim Suspension Order between 10 May 2019 and 17 December 2020. This was admitted by the Registrant in his submissions in response to the allegation.
21. With regard to particular 1a, Service User A gave evidence that she contacted the Registrant via LinkedIn in January 2020. She had been impressed by his insight into her condition when he prepared his report about her in January 2018 and hoped that he might be able to provide her with advice and support with some ongoing domestic issues. She said that she had no difficulty in contacting him on LinkedIn where he was profiled as a Psychologist. She stated that she contacted him in his capacity as a Psychologist.
22. The Registrant’s response to particular 1 is that:
• On the instruction of Service User A’s solicitors, he had interviewed her at his offices in Edinburgh on 8 January 2018 in his capacity as a Psychologist. He was instructed by Service User A’s solicitors to prepare a report about her for the purpose of criminal proceedings in which she was a defendant;
• He states that he completed the report and sent it to her solicitors on 15 January 2018, after which he had no further involvement and did not treat her clinically;
• He states that the Service User A’s solicitors were his “client’ for the purpose of his instruction, rather than Service User A herself;
• He states that he retired from practice as a Psychologist on or around November 2018 and had not been involved in any employment as a Psychologist since then. He did not renew his registration with the HCPC in May 2019 and had not subsequently described himself by any of his professional titles;
• He states that Service User A contacted him via LinkedIn on 9 January 2020 as follows: “Hi, I’m [Service User A]. I don’t know if you remember me but [KS] put me in touch with you a couple of years ago. I would love to be able to speak to you again if at all possible. Think I should have been talking about the domestic issues I also having at the time still think I have Aspergers but my docs don’t agree. They think it’s personality traits. If it is personality traits could this explain the so called stalking behaviour? As I really didn’t mean to do this”;
• He states that he replied as follows: “Hi [Service User A]. I recall you being in touch through [KS] before but not the detail of what you are concerned about. I would like to speak to you. Perhaps you could call me on Facebook Messenger. If not we could continue here. All the best, Ian”.
23. The Registrant’s contention in relation to particular 1 of the allegation is that, notwithstanding that he was a registered practitioner Psychologist, he was not practising in that capacity in his communications with Service User A because he made it clear to her that he was no longer working in that capacity. He relies on his message to Service User A dated 13 January 2020 in which he states “I have completely stopped working due to finding difficulty driving long distances [redacted] but would be more than pleased for us to talk about whatever you want by Messenger or email. My brain is still working ok …”.
24. In considering the Registrant’s submission, the Panel was assisted by the expert evidence of Dr Donner. In Dr Donner’s opinion the Registrant’s actions amounted to practising as a Practitioner Psychologist. The Registrant had a pre-existing therapeutic professional relationship with Service User A arising from his assessment of her in January 2018. Dr Donner referred to the fact that the Registrant must have been aware that Service User A, when contacting him in January 2020, was seeking his advice and help in his capacity as a Practitioner Psychologist and the Registrant offered to engage with her in that capacity. Dr Donner’s conclusion was that “Given SUA [Service User A] was seeking input regarding her problems from a position of being the Registrant’s previous client, these statements by the Registrant claiming to not be in practice do not reflect the situation in focus”.
25. The Panel agreed with Dr Donner’s opinion and found particular 1a proved.
26. With regard to particular 1b, Dr Donner cited examples where the Registrant was offering the Registrant professional advice, for example:
“I would say that it is more difficult for you to grow because you are stuck in the past. That doesn’t mean you won’t grow. I see enough in your writings to indicate you are growing. Why can’t you do anything until you are. My task is to help you be alive and achieve your potential (Maslow) if you wish to try” [emphasis added].
27. Dr Donner also cited instances where the Registrant requested further information of Service User A along with formulations, observations and insights. For example:
“Why did they make you leave university. You are an intelligent person but your personal problems at the time I suspect were at the root of things … One of the problems people can have is that instead of focusing on the present thinking is about the past … I think we need to focus on what’s happening at the present and what we are doing ….”
28. In the Panel’s judgement, the exchange of contemporaneous messages clearly established that the Registrant offered professional advice, opinion and support to Service User A. Accordingly, particular 1b is proved.
2. You did not maintain appropriate professional boundaries and/or abused your position of trust in relation to Service User A, in that you:
a. persistently and/or excessively messaged Service User A both on and/or outside of Facebook Messenger: Proved
b. continued to message Service User A despite them indicating on one or more occasions that your persistent messages were negatively impacting their mental health and/or they did not wish to engage in further contact: Proved
c. formed an inappropriate sexual and/or emotional relationship with Service User A: Proved
29. The evidence in support of particulars 2a, 2b and 2c is provided by the contemporaneous messages from the Registrant to Service User A. Service User A had contacted the Registrant for professional advice and support and not for any other reason. In his role as a Practitioner Psychologist the Registrant was under a duty to maintain professional boundaries.
30. With regard to particular 2a, the Panel found that, from an early stage in their correspondence, the Registrant persistently and excessively messaged Service User A and this continued until Service User A terminated the correspondence on 20 April 2020. In the Panel’s judgment, such messaging was in breach of professional boundaries. Accordingly, particular 2a is proved.
31. With regard to particular 2b, the Panel noted that the Registrant continued to message Service User A despite her telling him that his messages were having a negative impact on her. For example on 27 January 2020 Service User A messaged the Registrant:
“I’ve not heeled from past traumatic experiences and im having ptsd like flashbacks to previous times. I do feel the bet thing is that we do remain professional and plutonic [sic]”.
The Registrant ignored this request and on 2 February 2020 messaged Service User A, saying:
“Apologies, I seem to have forgotten the professional and the other bit.”
32. On 7 April 2020 Service User A messaged the Registrant saying:
“…. My mental health hasn’t been very good recently. I’m not sure if it’s the virus thing, the court thing with my ex, the “stalking” thing or even just texting you”.
The Registrant continued to message Service User A regardless.
33. On the basis of the above evidence, and Service User A’s evidence that she had indicated to the Registrant that his persistent texting was having a negative impact on her mental health, the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant’s conduct was in breach of professional boundaries. Accordingly, particular 2b is proved.
34. With regard to particular 2c, there were numerous and explicit texts from the Registrant to Service User A with an emotional and sexual content. This was plainly in breach of professional boundaries and particular 2c is therefore proved.
3. Your conduct in particulars 1 was dishonest
35. The Registrant was well aware when corresponding with Service User A between January 2020 and April 2020 that he was subject to an Interim Suspension Order which prevented him from practising as a Practitioner Psychologist. Regardless of that suspension, he offered Service User A his advice and support in his professional capacity. In the Panel’s judgment his actions in relation to Service User A were by the standards of ordinary decent people dishonest. Accordingly, particular 3 is proved.
4. Your conduct in Particulars 1 and/or 2 was sexually motivated.
36. The texts from the Registrant to Service User A contained explicit sexual messages. The Panel found that these messages were sent by the Registrant for his own sexual gratification and also in pursuit of a future sexual relationship with Service User A. Accordingly, particular 4 is proved.
Statutory Grounds
37. The Panel went on to consider whether the facts found proved in relation to the particulars, or any of them, amounted to misconduct.
38. The Panel was mindful that the question whether the proven facts constituted misconduct are matters for the Panel’s professional judgement, there being no standard or burden of proof.
39. The Panel took into account the submissions on behalf of the HCPC and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.
40. There were no submissions from the Registrant.
41. The Panel found the Registrant to have been in breach of the following standards of HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics (2016):
• Standard 1.3: You must encourage and help service users, where appropriate, to maintain their own health and well-being, and support them so they can make informed decisions. You must act in the best interests of service users;
• Standard 1.7: You must keep your relationships with service users … professional;
• Standard 2.7: You must use all forms of communication appropriately and responsibly, including social media and networking websites;
• Standard 9.1: You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession.
42. The Registrant engaged in emotionally charged and sexualised correspondence with Service User A, who had consulted him, and to whom he had offered help, in his professional capacity as a Practitioner Psychologist. The Registrant knew well that Service User A was emotionally vulnerable. The Panel considered his conduct in so doing to be a serious breach of professional boundaries and one which could properly be described as “deplorable” by the standards of ordinary, decent members of the public. This was compounded by his dishonesty in offering and giving professional advice and support when he was subject to an Interim Suspension Order.
43. The Panel found each of these particulars to constitute misconduct and that such misconduct was extremely serious.
Decision on impairment
44. The Panel took into account the submissions on behalf of the HCPC. There were no submissions from the Registrant. The Panel had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on “Fitness to Practise is Impairment” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.
45. In determining whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of his misconduct, the Panel took into account both the “personal” and “public” components of impairment. The “personal” component relates to the Registrant’s own practice as a Practitioner Psychologist, including any evidence of insight and remorse and efforts towards remediation. The “public” component includes the need to protect service users, declare and uphold proper standards of behaviour and maintain public confidence in the profession and the Regulator.
46. With regard to the “personal” component, the Panel noted that the Registrant had made no admissions to the allegation and had expressed no remorse. He appeared to blame the Registrant for contacting him and suggested, without any evidence, that she had “stalked” him. He characterised the explicit sexual content of his messages to Service User A as “flirting”. The Panel considered his behaviour towards her to have been sexually exploitative.
47. The Panel considered that the Registrant had shown no insight as to the negative impact of his conduct on Service User A or for the reputation of his profession.
48. In the absence of any evidence of remorse, insight or remediation, the Panel considered that there would be a significant risk of repetition if the Registrant were permitted to practise without restriction.
49. The Panel also found the “public” component of impairment to be satisfied in this case. The Panel considered the Registrant to pose a potential risk to service users. A member of the public, knowing of the Registrant’s sexually motivated misconduct towards a female, who had consulted him for professional advice and support, would undoubtedly expect some restriction to be placed on his registration. Public confidence in the profession and in the regulator would be undermined if there were no finding of impairment.
Decision on Sanction
50. The Panel took into account the submissions of Mr Bridges on behalf of the HCPC. The Registrant did not provide any submissions on sanction.
51. The Panel was guided by the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel was mindful that the purpose of a sanction is not to punish the Registrant but to protect the public and the wider public interest in upholding proper standards and maintaining the reputation of the profession. The Panel applied the principle of proportionality, balancing the interests of the Registrant with those of the public, and considered the available sanctions in ascending order.
52. With regard to mitigation, the Registrant has had a long, previously unblemished and, by his own account, distinguished career as a Practitioner Psychologist.
53. By way of aggravating factors:
• The Registrant engaged in a sexual relationship with Service User A, who had previously been his client. He abused her trust in him, when she had asked for his professional advice and support. His conduct towards her was a gross breach of trust and the professional duties which he owed to her;
• The Registrant knew from the outset that Service User A was emotionally vulnerable and exploited her vulnerability for his own sexual gratification;
• The Registrant has shown no remorse, insight or remediation and has sought without any justification to cast blame on Service User A for stalking him.
54. The case is too serious for the Panel to take no further action.
55. A Caution Order would not reflect the seriousness of the Registrant’s misconduct and dishonesty.
56. A Conditions of Practice Order would not be appropriate because the Panel could not formulate any conditions which would address the underlying concerns regarding the Registrant’s sexual misconduct and his exploitative attitude towards a female Service User whom he knew to be emotionally vulnerable.
57. The Panel considered whether to impose a Suspension Order but, in light of its conclusion as to the attitudinal nature of the Registrant’s misconduct, his lack of any insight and the consequent risk of repetition, the Panel decided that a Suspension Order would not be appropriate.
58. The Sanctions Policy states that a Striking Off Order is a sanction of last resort for serious persistent and deliberate acts including:
• Dishonesty
• Abuse of professional position, including vulnerability
• Sexual misconduct
and “is likely to be appropriate where the nature and gravity of the concerns are such that any lesser sanction would be insufficient to protect the public, public confidence in the profession, and public confidence in the regulatory process. In particular where the registrant:
• Lacks insight
• Continues to repeat the misconduct
• Is unwilling to resolve matters”.
59. In the Panel’s judgement all the indicative criteria for a Striking Off Order are present in this case. The public is entitled to expect members of the profession to behave with decency, honesty and integrity, all of which qualities were conspicuously lacking in the Registrant’s conduct towards Service User A. In the Panel’s judgement, the Registrant’s misconduct was so serious as to be incompatible with his remaining on the Register.
60. Whilst the Panel took full account of any potential hardship to the Registrant, the need to protect the public and the wider public interest must take priority over the Registrant’s interests. The Panel concluded that the appropriate sanction is a Striking Off Order.
Order
ORDER: That the Registrar is directed to strike the name of Mr Ian Stephen from the Register on the date this order comes into effect.
Notes
Interim Order
1. Mr Bridges on behalf of the HCPC made an application for an Interim Suspension Order for a period of 18 months to cover the appeal period or until any appeal lodged has been determined.
2. The Panel first decided whether to hear that application in the absence of the Registrant. The Panel was mindful that the notice of hearing advised the Registrant of the Panel’s power to make an interim order at this stage of the proceedings. The Panel determined at the outset of this hearing that the Registrant has deliberately absented himself from the hearing and has waived his right to attend. The Panel considered that it was in the public interest to hear the application for an interim order without delay and in the absence of the Registrant.
3. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor as to the basis for making an interim order.
4. Given the Panel’s findings that the Registrant’s actions are fundamentally at variance with remaining on the Register and a Striking Off Order has been imposed, it would be inconsistent with that need for public protection and the wider public interest not to impose some form of interim order. The Panel, for the same reasons it identified above, came to the conclusion that it is impracticable and inappropriate to formulate interim conditions of practice in this instance.
5. The Panel therefore makes an Interim Suspension Order under Article 31(2) of the Health Professions Order 2001, the same being in the public interest, having regard to the Panel’s findings of fact and determination as to impairment and sanction.
6. 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. This Interim Suspension is for a period of 18 months.
Hearing History
History of Hearings for Mr Ian Stephen
Date | Panel | Hearing type | Outcomes / Status |
---|---|---|---|
16/01/2023 | Conduct and Competence Committee | Final Hearing | Struck off |