Graham Flatman

Preliminary Matters

Amendment

1. At the commencement of the hearing Mr Jotangia applied to amend the Allegation as follows.

(a) By removal of the words ‘and Educational Psychologist’ in the head of the Allegations;

(b) Deletion the word ‘inappropriately’ where it occurred in the existing Allegation 1, 2,3 and 5.

(c) Change the word ‘provide’ in Allegation 1 to ‘prepare’.

(d) Change the words ‘You reported your opinion and/or commented on the diagnosis of a personality disorder which is matter for psychiatric expertise’ where they occurred in the current Allegation 3 to a stand-alone Allegation 4 and re-number the existing Allegations 4 and 5 as 5 and 6.

2. Mr Jotangia told the Panel that the proposed amendments would result in the Allegation reflecting the expert evidence and submitted that the Registrant would suffer no prejudice if the application were granted.

3. Mr Cridland did not oppose the application.

4. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

5. The Panel was satisfied that the proposed amendments did not expand the Allegations or vary the regulatory concerns arising from them. The Panel was further satisfied that the Registrant would suffer no prejudice if the Allegations were amended as proposed.

6. The Panel therefore granted the application.

Background

7. The Registrant is registered with the HCPC as a Practitioner Psychologist (Educational). It is alleged that on or around 30 April 2018, the Registrant was instructed as a single joint expert on behalf of all parties in the family proceedings via Mander Cruickshank Solicitors. He was instructed to conduct a psychological assessment of Service User A, (SUA), for the purposes of preparing an expert report as a Clinical Psychologist in family proceedings.

8. It is further alleged between 30 April and 13 June 2018 the Registrant conducted a clinical psychological assessment of SUA pursuant to these instructions.

9. Following the Registrant’s assessment of SUA she raised concerns regarding the Registrant’s conduct. It is alleged that the Registrant had acted outside of the scope of his practice by conducting a psychological assessment.

10. SUA alleged that due to these concerns, the Registrant’s expert report, submitted in the family proceedings was invalid.

11. SUA referred her concerns regarding the Registrant’s conduct to the HCPC on 21 August 2019.

 

Witness Evidence

12. The Panel heard live evidence from Dr Alwin on behalf of the HCPC and from the Registrant, Dr Hymans and Ms Laura McKenzie on behalf of the Registrant. The Panel also had witness statements before it from Mr Adam Mawson and Ms Lina Zarghani on behalf of the HCPC. The Panel also had document bundles from the HCPC and the Registrant and further documentation was provided on behalf of the Registrant during the progress of the hearing at the request of the Panel.

Dr Alwin

13. Dr Alwin took the affirmation, confirmed the terms of his expert report and adopted it as his evidence in chief.

14. Dr Alwin confirmed that he had had sight of the Court Order made pursuant to a case management hearing on 28 April 2018 requiring a report to be provided by a Clinical Psychologist in relation to SUA. He stated that it appeared that the Court was looking for a psychological assessment of SUA and that this was generally the field of a Clinical Psychologist, but that the nature of the psychological speciality required might not be fully appreciated by “the legal world”.

15. In his report Dr Alwin noted that from the Registrant’s registration with the HCPC and from the CV attached to the Registrant’s report in question, that he was qualified and registered as an Educational Psychologist. He stated that there was no indication the Registrant had undertaken clinical psychology training. Dr Alwin opined that consequently the Registrant was not qualified to accept an instruction based on a Court Order referring to him as a Clinical Psychologist. Dr Alwin further opined that the Registrant lacked sufficient training to function as a Clinical Psychologist and that he did not consider it was appropriate for the Registrant to accept instructions from the Court where it was specified that a Clinical Psychologist was needed to provide an expert report.

16. Dr Alwin also indicated in his report that he had concerns as to how an Educational Psychologist with no apparent further training or clinical experience in expert assessments of adults could have acquired the necessary skills or competence to complete an assessment on an individual over the age of 19, or an individual with learning disabilities over the age of 25.

17. In relation to the Registrant’s assessment of SUA, Dr Alwin opined that he did not consider it was appropriate for the Registrant to conduct a clinical psychological assessment of SUA but accepted that he would be likely to be competent in the use of the Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS), which was the cognitive assessment tool used by the Registrant.

18. Dr Alwin explained that the MCMI-III is a specialist assessment of personality disorder developed for use in clinical settings by clinicians trained in the use of personality assessments. He stated that the MCMI-III tended to be used by Clinical Psychologists and Forensic Psychologists with a special interest in personality who have developed expertise in the use of personality assessments as part of their clinical specialty. Dr Alwin opined that there was nothing contained in the Registrant’s CV to indicate he had developed a special interest in personality disorders or the application of personality testing to adults in clinical settings. Dr Alwin therefore further opined that the Registrant would be unlikely to have the requisite experience and expertise to use the MCMI-III in his assessment of SUA.

19. Dr Alwin further opined that he had concerns that, in providing an opinion regarding the MCMI-III, Mr Flatman did not set the results of the personality testing within the formulation of the individual’s functioning. Dr Aldwin explained that it was apparent from the information available that SUA had a complex family history, with reports she witnessed domestic violence and experienced a chaotic childhood environment that included being subjected to sexual abuse. There were also reports that in adulthood SUA had been subject to domestic abuse in her adult relationships, was seen to be vulnerable and to form relationships quickly in which there were concerns she was vulnerable to control. This would lead to a formulation in which SUA’s experience of a chaotic childhood involving abuse and adult functioning was characterised by vulnerability to domestic abuse and control. Dr Alwin opined that it was difficult to see how this outline of these known characteristics of SUA fitted with the diagnostic criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Dr Alwin noted that in his report the Registrant stated, “In attempting to cope she centred on herself, naturally and imaginatively seeking to make sense of the world around since this was chaotic, traumatic and essentially unfathomable”. Dr Alwin also stated that he considered there needed to be a greater focus upon the lived experience of SUA and how this would be consistent with a diagnosis of Narcissism. He further noted that the Registrant stated SUA was not experiencing any mental disorder but there was no report of any tests of mental disorder other than the outline of the findings of the MCMI III. He opined that he would have expected an assessment of current mental health symptomatology, such as the Symptom Check List 90 Revised, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale or a selection of the Beck inventories which would have been used to identify mental health problems. Dr Alwin commented in his report that he considered it notable that the Registrant’s report did not give the results for the MCMI-III Clinical Syndromes Scales, which could outline any issues with current mental health distress.

20. Dr Alwin also stated that in his view the Registrant had formed his opinion without access to SUA’s medical records, which given her history, would be likely to contain information of use in developing a formulation of her functioning. Dr Alwin accepted that he did not know whether the Registrant had made attempts to access the medical records but would have expected a statement in the report that his views could be affected by information within the medical records. He referred to Understanding Personality Disorder: The Report by the British Psychological Society Feb 2006 where it was recommended assessments of personality should draw upon a range of sources, which in Family Court instructions generally comprises of self-report, documents made available and psychometric testing. Dr Alwin opined that in the Registrant’s assessment he had applied the personality characteristics identified as an explanatory factor in SUA’s behaviour rather than setting the findings of the personality testing within an overall formulation based upon psychometrics, self-report and the documents made available. He opined that this made it difficult to identify how SUA’s behaviour had developed over time, what had led SUA to develop the personality characteristics identified and what impact these personality characteristics played in her beliefs, attitudes and behaviour. This in turn made it difficult to provide a coherent formulation that would inform responses to the specific matters the Registrant was required to address as per the letter of instruction and present an accurate impression of SUA’s lived experience.

21. Dr Alwin concluded that the Registrant was not appropriately qualified to provide a psychological report for SUA. In addition, there was nothing in the CV of the Registrant to indicate that they had developed the necessary skills and expertise in the assessment of adults. It was therefore not appropriate for the Registrant to produce a written report in respect of SUA and that in acting as he did the Registrant had acted outside the scope of his practice.

22. In answer to supplementary questions from Mr Jotangia, Dr Alwin explained the differentiation between an Educational Psychologist and a Clinical Psychologist , in particular that an Educational Psychologist was only qualified to assess individuals under the age of 19 or if they had learning difficulties up to 25. He confirmed his view that the Registrant did not have the requisite training to carry out the assessment required by the Court.

23. Dr Alwin told the Panel that when dealing with individuals such as SUA reliance could not be placed on the individual self-reporting and that the Registrant had provided no clear robust formulation. Dr Alwin explained that MCMI-III was a tool normally used in clinical settings and in non-clinical settings it gave rise to underreporting and this affected the scores obtained from it. He explained that in his report the Registrant had noted that SUA had scored highly in relation to narcissism and had written that she was very narcissistic. Dr Alwin said SUA’s personal history and presentation did not fit the picture of narcissistic personality and it was unfortunate her problems had been ascribed to this.

24. In cross examination Dr Alwin accepted that he had not had the Registrant’s statement or Dr Hymans’ report before him when he provided his report, but that he had now seen them and it had not caused him to change his views. In reply to a suggestion that the distinction between what a Clinical Psychologist and an Educational Psychologist could do had become blurred, Dr Alwin accepted that the distinction might be blurred to the legal profession, but that it was a practitioner’s responsibility to make sure he worked within the parameters of his specialism. He accepted that an Educational Psychologist might gain qualifications and experience in relation to the assessment of adults, but stressed that further clinical training in relation to adults had to be demonstrated. He explained that although it might be possible for an Educational Psychologist to assess adults over the age of 25, and indeed some of them may have been doing so for decades it would not be possible to establish their competency in doing so unless there was evidence of relevant training, review and experience.

25. Dr Alwin maintained in cross examination that the Registrant should have raised that he was not a Clinical Psychologist when he first received the letter of instruction and the Court Order. He further maintained that the Registrant’s report lacked formulation as to how information had been used to reach conclusions and expressed concern that conclusions had been reached without the Registrant having considered SUA’s medical records. He reiterated that it was not just the use of the MCMI-III that caused concern but how the result had been interpreted.

26. Dr Alwin did not accept that there was merely a difference of professional opinion between himself and the Registrant. He maintained his opinion was based on established principles, literature and research.

27. When referred to Allegation 4 in cross-examination, Dr Alwin stated that the Registrant had not made a diagnosis of a personality disorder and that he did not support this Allegation.

The Registrant

28. The Registrant was sworn in by the Hearings Officer, took the Oath and adopted his statement as his evidence in-chief.

29. The Registrant set out his academic and professional practice. He told the Panel that that he had initially practised as a trainee Educational Psychologist in Gravesend and had qualified as an Educational Psychologist in 1976. He became a Chartered Psychologist on 15 March 1989 and an Associate Fellow of the British Psychological Society on 3 May 1990.

30. The Registrant explained to the Panel that he held a BSc. Hons in Psychology from Durham University (1970), PGCE, Durham University (1971) (Distinction in Teaching), M.Sc. in Psychology and Education with Clinical Studies from the University of London (1976), Diploma in Ericksonian Hypnosis, Psychotherapy Nerolinguistic Programming Institute of Education (1976) (Distinction in Neurolinguistic Programming (British Hypnosis Research) (1995) (adult training). He said he also held the Cardiff Family Law School Bond Solon Expert Witness qualification (2006), and the Cardiff University Accredited Expert Witness (Family) (2018) and had completed the Bond Solon Update to Part 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules (2009).

31. The Registrant said he was on the BPS register and the UK register of expert witnesses as a vetted expert, was registered with 'Expert Witness', a directory of experts and is included on the Witness Directory' of vetted experts.

32. The Registrant told the Panel that he was experienced in assessing and treating a wide range of psychological conditions in children, adults and families alike and had been undertaking this work for 49 years. He explained that as a Local Authority Educational Psychologist, he worked with children, adults and families in Local Authority Education Authorities from 1974 to 1990. During this period, He worked for Kent County Council (5 years) and the Inner London Education Authority (ILEA) (12 years).

33. He explained his role as a Local Authority Educational Psychologist spanning 17 years, involved work as part of a multi-disciplinary team initially in child guidance clinics and then Departments of Child and Family Psychiatry, which are now known as CAMHS.

34. The Registrant explained that whilst working as an Educational psychologist in ILEA, He was part of a limited number of psychologists who additionally worked at the Ebury Centre in London, where children and families with especially significant and complex learning difficulties were referred by any one of the ten London Boroughs. He stated that he considered that he had gained a great deal of experience in specialist diagnosis and assessment of learning difficulties, within families.

35. The Registrant told the Panel that he set up his own private practice 1990 and had been running this clinic for over 30 years, offering assessment and treatment to children and families, as well as exclusively assessing and treating hundreds of adults for a range of psychological issues in the absence of children or in the context of any familial relationship. He stated that he had dealt with a significant number of referrals for treatment and assessment of children, adults and families with a range of clinical issues and a number of GP surgeries had requested the Registrant run assessment and treatment clinics for their patients. The Registrant stated he was also asked by Maidstone Psychology Service to run sessional clinics as part of their service to GP practices.

36. The Registrant told the Panel that he was awarded the Diploma in Ericksonian Hypnosis, Psychotherapy and Neurolinguistic Programming (British Hypnosis Research), which was all adult based. He said that within his clinical practice, he developed and used a significant number of treatment methods including CBT, neurolinguistic programming and hypnosis methods for treatment of depression and anxiety conditions, traumas and phobias and provided short, medium and long term treatment and therapy to a large number of adults, the majority of whom have improved considerably.

37. The Registrant said he had been a consultant psychologist for a child fostering agency (Integrated Service Programme, Sittingbourne) from approximately 1995 - 2005, which included Educational assessments, therapy and support training for foster carers. He stated that he had been the consultant psychologist for a probation hostel (from approximately 1995 - 2003), assessing and treating a significant number of late teenage and early adult male offenders and from 2014. He was a consulting psychologist for Symbol Family Support Services that undertakes residential and community based parenting assessments, including individual psychological assessments of approximately 60 - 80 parents, where psychological status is a factor.

38. The Registrant explained how he had been approached by a children’s guardian in approximately 1997 to become an expert witness in the family Court and that they had said to him “We’ll teach you the ropes”. He started receiving instructions to provide reports to courts and had been instructed in approximately six cases a month, therefore seventy to eighty new family law cases a year. His CV, qualifications and experience are fully notified and the Court has total discretion as to which expert is to be instructed as being appropriate in their particular matter. He said that he had never once been notified of any concerns and since 1997, had provided expert witness evidence in approximately 1,680 family law matters.

39. The Registrant provided the Panel with a record of his CPD and explained to the Panel his understanding of the procedure involved in the instructing of experts and his perception of his duties when instructed as an expert to the Court.

40. He said that it was his understanding that prior to the application for permission to obtain expert evidence, the lead solicitor in each matter made an initial enquiry as to availability and at that stage would raise any queries with regard to qualifications, experience or expertise. The judge either decides that an expert psychological assessment is necessary or not and if it is necessary the specific expert is selected, and it is the lead solicitor's responsibility to ensure that the letter of instruction is accurate in terms of precisely what was decided at court.

41. The Registrant said the lead solicitor sends the letter of instruction, as seen and agreed by all parties and the Court, and this is the point of reference for the expert witness with regard to the background information, what assessment is required and any specific questions raised. The expert is responsible for raising any queries that might arise from the letter of instruction prior to or during the subsequent assessment.

42. The Registrant explained to the Panel how he had received instruction in relation to preparing a report on SUA. He said his formal instructions were confirmed by letter dated 20 April 2018 which was the only letter of instruction he received. He explained that the letter of instruction also referred to the "attached" Court Order dated 24 April 2018 which obviously did not then exist and there was also a reference to a 'Draft Order' in the bundle, which was unusual.

43. The Registrant stated that he considered he was qualified and competent to carry out this task and reviewed the documents provided to him and carried out an assessment of SUA on 7 June 2018.

44. The Registrant set out what the assessment involved. He stated it involved completing an initial interview, asking SUA basic questions as to her then current status, asking her opinion with regard to her three children and the current legal proceedings, her response to the Local Authority's parenting concerns. He said he also asked her about her personal history, her life story, asking her a number of questions to determine her present state with regard to any significant life issues, mental health issues and asking her about her young child.

45. The Registrant explained that the assessment also involved completing the psychometric tests:

i. Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale IV (WAIS IV)
ii. Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III (MCMI-III)
iii. Neale Analysis of Reading Ability - Revised (NARA)

46. The Registrant stated that the psychometric test results only contributed to his overall clinical assessment.

47. The Registrant referred the Panel to his report dated 13 June 2018, and stated he had correctly referred to himself as a 'Chartered Psychologist' and that the report was a "psychological assessment" of SUA. The Registrant told the Panel that he had not, at any time, stated that he had undertaken a "clinical psychological assessment", nor had he described himself as a "Clinical Psychologist". He said he did not consider that he was instructed to carry out a clinical psychological assessment of SUA.

48. The Registrant explained that he was notified by the HCPC of the complaint from SUA relating to his first report on 9 October 2019. He was surprised that there was a complaint because his report dated 13 June 2018 was quite positive regarding SUA.

49. The Registrant stated that at this time he had already been instructed to complete a second report in respect of SUA’s other two children and immediately notified the lead solicitor about SUA's complaint to the HCPC by email. He said he assumed that once he had told the lead solicitor about the complaint, this would then be considered between the parties and the Court and he would be provided with an update as to whether he was to proceed with a second report or not. The Registrant said that the Court confirmed his instruction to complete a second report, this time on SUA's children and that report was subsequently completed and filed on 7 November 2019. He said he was not informed of any other discussions between the parties and the Court regarding the complaint.

50. The Registrant said he gave brief evidence at a Court hearing on 28 September 2020. He said no criticism was made of him, nor were any queries or concerns were raised about his skills or expertise by any party. The Registrant said that SUA was a litigant in person at that hearing and would have had the opportunity to voice any concerns directly the Court, had she wished to. He was not asked any questions about the HCPC complaint. He referred the Panel to a statement written by SUA dated 18 September 2020 where she stated:

“Mr Flatman's report [sic] was extremely positive but it had the added academic quality to it as Mr Flatman is highly regarded by Cafcass as an expert independent witness for doing comprehensive psychological assessments in cases to which his expertise in my application was exactly that to which he has extensive and lengthy experience in.,, Mr Flatman's report / was extremely positive but it had the added academic quality to it as Mr Flatman is highly regarded by Cafcass as an expert independent witness for doing comprehensive psychological assessments in cases to which his expertise in my application was exactly that to which he has extensive and lengthy experience in. And also that Mr Flatman had already done an assessment on myself when / had (redacted) while / was in a mother and baby foster placement unit. So when he not only did another comprehensive assessment but this time with questions in relation to my application for discharge of care order but that he also had a flu history and timeline of me from when he assessed me when (redacted) was just a few months old. So his conclusion on him recommending the children over a transition period be reunited back to my care if the Court so decides and there are no other areas of concern then on this his opinion would be informed not only on the current assessment but on his now more knowledge as to my journey which he comment of me 'exceeding expectations' should be regarded as a substantial. I have made all the significant changes over the last 4 years and have demonstrated consistency on this. Mr Flatman’s psychological assessment has more credentials in forming an expert witness statement for the purposes of the Court then the /SW who lacks the depth of area of expertise and her report is of in my view very poor quality compared to Mr Flatman. If the CG were to ignore Mr Flatman's conclusion nib favour of the ISW's then I think she would have to evidence the reason for this and to demonstrate why Mr Flatman who has extensive knowledge of not just this area but also of my history and his academic expertise has always in the past been used by CAFCASS in cases such as mine and trusted as such for a number of year”.

51. In specific reply to the Allegations the Registrant stated that when he accepted the instructions to provide a report he considered that he was being asked to undertake the type of assessment that he had been instructed to complete, many times, by both this Court and indeed the experienced lead solicitor, namely a psychological assessment and not a clinical psychological assessment. He said he had worked with the lead solicitor on at least four previous cases prior to this instruction, and she was very familiar with his skills and expertise.

52. The Registrant initially told the Panel that he had no recollection of seeing the actual Court Order or any reference to the instruction of a Clinical Psychologist until the complaint was raised with the HCPC. He stated that he considered that the Court Order ‘erroneously’ refers to him as a ‘Clinical Psychologist’. He said he had accepted the instruction as outlined in the letter of instruction from the lead solicitor which did not refer to a clinical psychologist being instructed or ‘clinical psychological assessment’. However, he later accepted that he would have received a copy of the Court Order as he was aware that medical reports were to be provided to him as set out in the Court Order. The Registrant said he no longer had the initial documents accompanying the letter of instruction and thought that either he had not seen the Court Order at the time or he gave it only a cursory glance and clearly missed the reference to him being described as a "Clinical Psychologist". He accepted that he should have seen this document or paid closer attention to it and had he done so would have clarified with the lead solicitor the ‘erroneous’ reference to a Clinical Psychologist.

53. The Registrant stressed that as far as he understood, he was instructed to assess and report on SUA as a psychologist. He further stressed that he did not accept the instructions on the basis that he was a Clinical Psychologist. He noted the Court Order referred to a psychological assessment of SUA at Paragraph 12(a). Paragraphs 12(b) and (c) both refer to a psychological assessment. It is only in two places where the Court Order refers to a 'Clinical Psychologist’. He told the Panel it was his understanding is that the reference to a "clinical psychologist" rather than to a psychologist or a "chartered psychologist" was a mistake, and the intention of the parties and the Court was for him to be instructed, rather than for a clinical psychologist to be instructed.

54. The Registrant stated that he had not presented himself as a Clinical Psychologist which he understood is a protected title with the HCPC and he had not undertaken a clinical psychological assessment. He stated that he was not precluded from undertaking psychological assessments of adults, such as SUA, by virtue of being an Educational Psychologist and not a Clinical Psychologist.

55. The Registrant stressed that he had over twenty years' post-qualification experience of working with children and families before he started working as an expert witness and continued to carry out psychological assessments of adults on a regular basis. He maintained that the qualifications and experience section of his statement clearly set out his qualifications and experience to assess adults for psychological assessments.

56. The Registrant stated that he was suitably qualified and experienced in using the MCMI-Il psychometric test, having a Pearson Clinical qualification level C, He explained that when assessing SUA the test was used in conjunction with clinical interview and information relevant to the instructions and documents provided.

57. The Registrant said it was not his opinion that SUA was likely to have a personality disorder and there was no evidence from the clinical assessment or from MCMI-III that this was the case. He referred to his report where it stated, ‘the diagnosis of personality disorder is a matter for psychiatric expertise.’

58. The Registrant told the Panel that at no time during the assessment of SUA, or in the provision of his report, did he consider that he had worked beyond the scope of his practice. He told the Panel on a number of occasions that what he had been asked to do was to consider all the information before him and identify what had gone wrong and what could be done to assist SUA.

59. In cross examination, when asked about his letter of instruction, the Registrant agreed that the document before the Panel appeared to be a draft and suggested it looked like a ‘rushed job’. He said he had been unable to locate his actual letter of instruction and could not recall what had been sent along with the letter of instruction. He said he would receive a bundle of documents, probably the Court bundle. The Registrant said that he considered he was able to undertake a psychological assessment in a clinical setting as a result of his extensive experience gained over a number of years. The Registrant stated that he considered the differentiation set out by Dr Alwin between a Clinical and Educational Psychologist was too simplistic and that through experience he had extended his scope of practice extensively. When asked about specific training the Registrant referred to his training in Neuro Linguistic Programming and his CPD training.

60. When asked in cross examination about what documents he had seen when assessing SUA, the Registrant stated that he had not been provided with her medical records and therefore may not have been aware of the full background. He explained that there was sometimes a delay in the provision of medical records and that he would much preferred to have the medical records. He stated that it was important that he could see them as it was in the Cout Order.

61. In relation to the tests the Registrant used, he said he used the MCMI-III “lightly”. With regard to his reference to narcissism, the Registrant stated that he considered that SUA had demonstrated significant egocentric narcissism and had been unable to see beyond her immediate needs. He said his main thoughts were how could he explain to the Court about SUA and what had gone wrong. The Registrant stated it was his view that SUA was obviously vulnerable, had dependency issues, gone through trauma including sexual abuse and that he had found this out from discussion of her history with SUA.

62. Prior to commencing Panel questions, the Panel asked to be provided with copies of the relevant Court Practice Directions for the use of experts in child proceedings and the British Psychological Society (BPS) guidance applicable at the date of the Allegations. In response the Panel was provide with Practice Directions 25 A – F and the BPS Guidelines on Psychologists as Expert Witnesses (2017 Guidance) and the BPS Guidance for Psychologists as Expert Witnesses in the Family Courts: Standards, Competencies and Expectations (2016 Guidance).

63. Having been provided with these documents the Panel confirmed with the parties that they had no further matters they wished to question the Registrant on prior to the Panel commencing its questions.

64. Panel questions did not commence until the following day. In Panel questions the Registrant made reference to having read his personal notes of his evaluation of SUA overnight and the contents of them. He also referred during his evidence to an email from his instructing solicitor. The Panel raised this issue with parties and it was agreed that these documents should also be provided to the Panel. Again, this did not raise the need for any further questioning by Mr Jotangia or Mr Cridland. The additional evidence provided was a 35 page bundle of redacted notes taken by the Registrant during his assessment of SUA as well as a short email exchange between the Registrant and his instructing solicitor.

65. In response to Panel questions the Registrant confirmed he had a supervisor who was a Senior Clinical Psychologist with whom he had general discussions about cases and this had started about 9 or 10 years ago. When asked why he had not used his title of Educational Psychologist in his report the Registrant said he did not have a ‘good answer’ for this question, but overall courts asked for a psychological report and rarely defined a specialism. He said that he was not aware of the BPS Guidance which states that “all psychologists that are eligible to do so should use their protected title”. The Registrant stated that he believed he had not been trying to hide anything by not using his protected title. When asked if he believed that he was acting as an Educational Psychologist when assessing SUA he said that he did. He said that he had regretted not applying to be registered as a Clinical Psychologist at the time of the initial registration of psychologists in 2009. He said he “didn’t think it was a problem”. He said he could not put an exact date on when he started to use MCMI-III but thought it was around 2015, that initially he had gained experience under peer supervision but had also undergone training in its use. The Registrant accepted that when assessing SUA he had yet to undertake such training. He could not provide an explanation why his report did not contain the scores he had obtained when using MCMI-III. He suggested that Family Courts had indicated that reports should be as brief as possible. It was pointed out that, other than his cognitive assessment that there were no other details of what was done or when. The Registrant explained that everything was done on one single occasion and that an assessment might take up to 6 hours.

66. The Registrant accepted that he had not undertaken any specific training for assessment of adults but that he had a great deal of experience in such assessments, particularly since he started his own practice. He stated that he would have preferred to have had SUA’s medical records, but was also aware that “there were things going on behind the scenes”. He said that his instructing solicitor would be able to explain why no medical records had been provided to him.

67. The Registrant was referred by the Panel to the BPS 2016 Guidance and in particular the requirements set out in paragraph 4.9:

“In order, therefore, to provide valid evidence and opinion to the Court, the report has to include sufficient detail to explain, and justify the conclusions drawn, threading together the relevant factors and providing a coherent explanation. A failure to provide coherent evidence is likely to arise if there is an exclusion or over simplification/summarisation of often complex and multiple contributory factors or if the Psychologist is not allowed sufficient access to relevant information and data (e.g. no access to medical records or permission withheld to undertake direct observation) Such circumstances are likely to lead to the requirement for clarification, either by the provision of further written evidence or Court attendance, both of which often cause additional cost and delay”.

The Registrant stated that he believed he had conducted an appropriate assessment, had read all the records available to him and that the Court had accepted his report. He said he “did his very best” to do a competent assessment of SUA and understand her background and presentation, but added “One could always want more evidence”.

68. During Panel questions, the Registrant was referred to Practice Direction 25B ‘The Duties of an Expert’. The Panel referred him to paragraph 9.1 which sets out all the requirements for the contents of an expert report. When asked by the Panel whether his report complied with these requirements he said it did, he had done his best.

69. The Panel also referred him to Practice Direction 25C “Children Proceedings – The Use of Single Joint Experts and the Process Leading to an Expert Being Instructed, or Expert Evidence being Put Before the Court” and he was asked what preliminary enquiries had been made of him by the instructing solicitors and he said it was about his availability and fees. When referred to the letter of instruction and asked how he knew what date he was to provide the report by as this was not contained in the letter the Registrant stated he could not recall. He suggested that as this letter appeared to be a draft the date might be in the final letter he received. The Panel also asked the Registrant how he knew the Court Order directed that he was to be provided with SUA’s medical records, the Registrant stated it was difficult to recall the sequence of events that occurred, but he had seen the reference to medical records in the Court Order. The Registrant also accepted that the reference to the assessment being undertaken by a Clinical Psychologist was in the Court Order and he had not noticed it.

70. The Registrant was referred to the four specific questions in the Letter of Instructions he was asked to answer. He stated that the questions were not specifically framed for either an Educational Psychologist or a Clinical Psychologist but a psychologist with relevant experience.

71. During Panel questions the Registrant confirmed that he could not recall ever being specifically instructed by the Court as an Educational Psychologist. He said that a newly qualified Clinical Psychologist could not have carried out the assessment of SUA and that it was dependent upon experience.

72. The Registrant said that he did not always receive a copy of the Practice Directions when he received instructions, but he was aware of them. The Registrant told the Panel that when providing the report, he had a duty to the HCPC, the Court and those instructing him. The Panel asked whether he had any responsibility to anyone else and he said “No”.

Dr Hymans

73. Dr Hymans took the affirmation, confirmed the terms of his expert report and adopted it as his evidence in chief.

74. Dr Hymans, in his report commented that the retaining of the Registrant in Court proceedings suggests that the Court was aware of his CV and qualifications, as was the lead solicitor who had instructed him several times in the past. He opined that the content of Mr Flatman’s CV fulfilled the HCPC’s Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics, in that he has been honest about his experience, qualifications and skills and that the central issue for the Panel to consider was whether the Registrant has the requisite expertise to carry out the work that he was instructed to do. Dr Hymans referred the Panel to ‘BPS Psychologists as Expert Witnesses guidance’ dated July 2021 and opined that the Registrant had clearly acted in accordance with this guidance.

75. Dr Hymans stated that he disagreed with Dr Alwin’s concerns that “an Educational Psychologist with no apparent further training or clinical experience in experts’ assessments of adults could have acquired the necessary skills or competence to complete an assessment on an individual over the age of nineteen or an individual with learning disabilities over the age of twenty-five.” Dr Hymans commented that such a view lacked the necessary evidence to be substantiated. He further commented that the Registrant’s description of CPD activity highlights that he had completed several training courses, which includes for example, ‘Mental Illness within Parenting Assessment (2 x 3 hours) in April and May 2020; ‘Attachment within the Parenting Assessment’ (2 x 3 hours) in February and July 2021; ‘Parenting and Personality Disorder’ (2 x 3 hours) in November 2021 and March 2022; a ‘Millon Webinar’ in February 2021; and attended The Millon Personality Group (December 2022).

76. Dr Hymans commented that it is too simplistic to say, as Dr Alwin did that the Registrant was not qualified to accept an instruction based on a Court Order referring to him as a Clinical Psychologist. Dr Hymans referred to the Registrant’s CV which stated that he is qualified and registered as an Educational Psychologist and noted the Registrant was retained as an expert in the proceedings and instructed in linked care proceedings involving Service User A’s other children and gave evidence at the final hearing in September 2020. Dr Hymans opined that the retaining of the Registrant in Court proceedings suggests that the Court was aware of his CV and qualifications, as was the lead solicitor who had instructed him several times in the past. Dr Hymans further commented that by virtue of the ongoing and retained instruction, it could be inferred that no party to the proceedings had raised any concerns about Mr Flatman’s involvement.

77. Dr Hymans accepted that as a matter of “good practice” the Registrant should have informed the Court of what was maybe a typographical error in the Court Order referring to him as a Clinical Psychologist. He stated that he would not be critical of the Registrant in the context of a regulatory investigation, for not raising this, especially as from his experience it is common place amongst the judiciary to confuse Educational and Clinical Psychologists. Dr Hymans stated he did not believe that the Registrant was unregistered /not qualified to accept the instruction, because irrespective of the Clinical Psychologist wording, what was required was a psychological assessment. He opined that based on his psychological report in the bundle the Registrant conducted the assessment as any competent HCPS registered psychologist would by interviewing the client, using appropriate psychological assessments/tests, analysing the data collected and writing a report that answers the letter of instruction.

78. Dr Hymans stated that he considered that the central issue was whether the Registrant had the requisite expertise to carry out the work that he was instructed to do, that is whether he was registered and/or qualified to do so.

79. Dr Hymans opined that the Registrant’s CV satisfied the criteria in 6.1.2.3 in that “through specialist training, study, or experience, is able to provide a Court, tribunal or hearing with relevant scientific, technical or professional information or opinion, based on skills, expertise, or knowledge, that is likely to be beyond the experience and knowledge of the representing lawyers, judge, jury or panel”, the Registrant could practise as an expert witness.

80. Dr Hymans stated that once trained in the use of the WAIS there is no reason why an Educational Psychologist, such as the Registrant could not use such an instrument with SUA.

81. Dr Hymans opined that the Registrant was qualified to administer the MCMI-IV.

82. Dr Hymans accepted that there was nothing directly in the Registrant’s CV that referred to a special interest in personality disorder, the Registrant was a qualified Educational Psychologist and, in his training, (as well as with his first degree in psychology) he would have studied personality and personality disorders.

83. Dr Hymans concluded that the Registrant provided an opinion in relation to the Letter of Instruction. The content of which was what he would expect from an expert witness report for the Family Courts, this evidenced by the fact that he has been retained for completing approximately 72 reports annually on childcare litigation issues.

84. Dr Hymans told the Panel that in general in recent years Educational Psychologists have broadened the scope of their practice and worked with adults as well as children.

85. In cross examination Dr Hymans accepted he was giving evidence as an Educational Psychologist and that he was not involved in Family Court work a lot. He also accepted that the only training which the Registrant had taken on ‘Parenting and Personality Disorders’ post-dated the Allegations. Dr Hymans also stated that he personally would not diagnose personality disorders. He re-iterated that it was not necessary to use the actual word ‘formulation’ in a report but that a formulation process did require to be carried out during an assessment, although he commented that different experts had different views on what required to go into a formulation. Dr Hymans stated that any expert must summarise findings, link them to what they were asked to do and explain the basis for any conclusions. He re-iterated his view that there existed a difference of opinion between Dr Alwin and the Registrant.

86. When questioned by the Panel, Dr Hymans stated that the Registrant had gone further than most Educational Psychologists in expanding his practice. He also explained that he would insert in any report he produced that he was a specialist Educational Psychologist and that a practitioner should use his protected title. Dr Hymans opined that it was up to the individual practitioner to self-regulate and that if he received instructions involving adult mental health issues that would be his ‘cut off’. He also commented that he personally would have gone further and explained how the lack of medical records might impact on the assessment and he would have gone back to the instructing solicitor and asked for the records. He accepted that the Registrant should have put a caveat in the report regarding the lack of medical records. He also stated that he would put in an addendum once he had received the medical records.

87. Dr Hymans accepted that, as an Educational Psychologist, he could not criticise Dr Alwin’s opinion on what should be in an assessment produced by a Clinical Psychologist. Nor was he best placed to say whether the Registrant had produced a good clinical psychological report as he was not a Clinical Psychologist.

88. Dr Hymans also accepted that it was not simply a matter of good practice for the Registrant’s to raise the issue about the Clinical Psychologist reference in the Court Order if he became aware of it, but rather it was his duty to do so.

89. Dr Hymans was referred to both the 2016 and 2017 BPS Guidelines and accepted that the 2016 BPS Guidelines were specific to experts instructed in the Family Court.

Laura McKenzie

90. Ms Laura McKenzie took the oath, confirmed the terms of her witness statement and adopted it as her evidence in chief. She set out her qualifications and experience and her current employment. Ms McKenzie confirmed that she was the ‘Lead Solicitor’ in relation to the proceedings involving SUA.

91. Ms McKenzie explained that she knew the Registrant in a professional capacity and set out her interactions with him as an expert witness. She stated she was aware that the Registrant was a chartered psychologist and had the protected title of Educational Psychologist. She said she had worked with him on a number of occasions.

92. Ms McKenzie took the Panel through the process of instructing an expert in the Family Court in general terms. However, in relation to the instruction of the Registrant she had difficulty in recalling how she had instructed him. She told the Panel that the reference in the Court Order to a Clinical Psychologist was ‘erroneous’ and that she had no explanation for it. She said the Court was well aware that the Registrant was an Educational Psychologist.

93. Ms McKenzie also told the Panel that she had moved firms since the date of the Allegations, and had no access to the case file and therefore could not confirm the contents of the actual Letter of Instruction sent to the Registrant. She also could not recall the contents of the bundle that she sent to the Registrant but said it was her usual practice to include the same bundle that had been sent to the Court.

94. In cross examination Ms McKenzie could not recall which other experts may have been considered in relation to the production of a report for SUA. She also said that she had not spotted the use of the words Clinical Psychologist in the Court Order, and had she seen it she would have raised it with the Court.

95. In answer to Panel questions, Ms McKenzie explained that she had left Mander Cruickshank in January 2021 and did not have access to the file. She stated she was not made aware of any complaint in 2019 and that the issue was not raised in the hearing. Ms McKenzie was referred to Practice Direction 25C and asked about preliminary enquiries as per paragraph 3.2. She said she would have asked about timescale, fees and the Registrant’s availability. In response to a question regarding paragraph 3.11, the terms of the Draft Order to be attached to her Application, she said they did not follow the Practice Direction in Leicester. She further explained that a copy of the relevant Practice Directions would not necessarily be included with any Letter of Instruction but there would be a link to in set out in the letter.

96. Ms McKenzie confirmed that the Court Order would have been sent to the Registrant once sealed.

 

Submissions

97. Mr Jotangia adopted his case summary and the evidence matrix set out therein.

98. He submitted that Dr Alwin was consistent and credible. He further submitted that as he was a Clinical Psychologist the Panel should attach greater weight to his evidence. He submitted that SUA was a complex adult. He referred to the BPS guidelines on Standards, Competencies and Expectations 2016, in particular paragraphs 2.3, 2.8, 4.8, 4.9, 5.7, 5.8 and 5.15 and submitted that what was critical was that the assessment should contain a formulation.

99. Mr Jotangia submitted that the Court Order referred to Graham Flatman as a Clinical Psychologist and that the assessment was to be conducted by a Clinical Psychologist. It was highly unlikely that these were administrative errors. He submitted that the Panel should find Allegation 1 proved.

100. Mr Jotangia explained that he did not intend to go into further Allegations in detail, but referred to the BPS and HCPC guidance and submitted that the Panel should find the further charges proved, albeit he accepted that Dr Alwin no longer supported Allegation 4.

101. Mr Cridland addressed each Allegation in turn.

102. In relation to Allegation 1 he submitted that the issue was “what was the intention of the Court”. He submitted that either the Court wished for a Clinical psychologist to be appointed or it wished for the Registrant to be appointed and the term ‘clinical psychologist’ was ‘surplus’. Mr Cridland submitted the latter was more likely as the known facts supported this conclusion.

103. Mr Cridland argued that both the Registrant and Ms McKenzie had given evidence that the Court had a copy of the Registrant’s CV and that the Registrant was not the only expert available – there could have been up to 5. Mr Cridland submitted the Court was aware that the Registrant was an Educational Psychologist and it was its intention to instruct him rather than a Clinical Psychologist. He referred the Panel to the letter of instruction before it and the evidence of Ms McKenzie. He submitted that it was clear that the application asks for a psychological assessment to be prepared not an assessment by a Clinical Psychologist. He submitted that any reference to a Clinical Psychologist in the Court Order was an ‘error’.

104. In relation to Allegation 2, 5 and 6 Mr Cridland submitted that the Registrant’s wide range of experience resulted in him being competent to carry out a clinical assessment of SUA and that he did not require to be a Clinical Psychologist to do this.

105. In relation to Allegation 3, Mr Cridland stated that the Registrant accepted the factual matrix of this Allegation but denied his actions were outside the scope of his practice.

106. Mr Cridland reminded the Panel that Dr Alwin no longer supported Allegation 4.

107. In relation to Allegation 6, with reference to his prior submissions Mr Cridland submitted that it was clear the Registrant had not worked beyond the scope of his practice.

Decision on Facts

Legal Advice and Approach

108. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. He referred the Panel to the cases of Suddock v NMC [2015] EWHC 3612 (Admin), Dutta v GMC [2020] EWHC 1974 (Admin), Khan v GMC [2021]EWHC 374 (Admin) and Byrne v GMC [2021] EWHC 2237 (Admin)in relation to its approach to the assessment of witness evidence.

109. The Panel considered each particular of the Allegation in turn. In reaching its decision the Panel considered how the relevant witness evidence fitted with the non-contentious or agreed facts, contemporaneous documents, the inherent probability or improbability of any account of events and any consistencies and inconsistencies.

110. The Panel took into account all evidence before it, including the submissions of Mr Jotangia and Mr Cridland.

111. The Panel considered that Dr Alwin was knowledgeable and gave his evidence in a clear and confident manner. His oral evidence was consistent with his expert report and the Panel consider he was fair and balanced. He was at pains not to denigrate or criticise the Registrant personally. The Panel considered that he was an experienced Clinical Psychologist. He was clear when he did not support an Allegation.

112. The Panel considered that the Registrant was vague when he gave evidence – in particular in relation to the exact training he had undertaken prior to the date of the Allegations that he asserted allowed him to undertake such work. The Panel also considered that the Registrant’s oral evidence was at times inconsistent and he demonstrated a lack of understanding of an expert’s obligations under Practice Direction 25 B. The Panel also considered that the Registrant failed to demonstrate a clear understanding of who he had had a duty to when acting as an expert. In addition, he failed to demonstrate an understanding of The HCPC Standards of Proficiency for Practitioner Psychologists: “Standard 2.1 Registrant practitioner psychologists must understand the need to act in the best interests of service users at all times”.

113. The Panel considered Dr Hymans was knowledgeable and gave his evidence in a clear manner. The Panel considered that he was fair and balanced. He was careful to limit his answers to his area of experience as an Educational Psychologist and accepted that he lacked recent experience of acting as an expert witness in the Family Court.

114. The Panel considered that Ms McKenzie’s evidence was consistent with her written witness statement. However, her specific recall in respect of the matters arising from the Allegations was limited. Her evidence in relation to when she had been informed of the complaint to the HCPC was inconsistent with that of the Registrant.

115. The Panel attached appropriate weight to the witness statement of Adam Mawson, a Registrations Manager at the HCPC and Lina Zarghani, a Senior Paralegal at Kinglsey Napley LLP.

The Panel’s Reasons

1. On or around 30 April 2018, you accepted the instructions pursuant to a Court Order referring to you as a 'clinical psychologist', to conduct and prepare an independent expert witness psychological assessment report of Service User A when you were not registered and/or qualified to do so.

116. Found Proved.

117. In considering this Allegation, the Panel took into account all relevant evidence including the evidence of Dr Alwin, the Registrant, Dr Hymans and Ms McKenzie.

118. The Panel noted that it was not a matter of dispute that the Registrant had accepted the instructions.

119. The Panel considered that it was first required to address the question of whether the insertion of the words ‘Clinical Psychologist’ was ‘erroneous’ or a mistake as asserted by the Registrant and Ms McKenzie.

120. The Panel determined that it is clear from the Court documentation that the psychologist who was to carry out the assessment and report to the Court was to be a Clinical Psychologist. The protected title of Clinical Psychologist was clearly used twice in the Court Order and specifically referred to Graham Flatman (Clinical Psychologist). The Panel did not accept the general assertions of the Registrant and Ms McKenzie that this must have been an error and there was nothing before the Panel to undermine the terms of the Court Order. The Panel noted that nothing had been produced from the Court to state that the use of this protected title was incorrect.

121. The Panel noted that the Registrant did not attribute the protected title of Clinical Psychologist to himself in his reports and stated that he did not realise the Court Order required the assessment to be carried out by a Clinical Psychologist until the complaint was made to the HCPC in August 2019, at which point he told the Panel that he raised this with Ms McKenzie. Ms McKenzie told the Panel that she also did not realise this term was used in the sealed order when she received it from the Court and sent it to the Registrant. She was unable to state when she initially found out about the use of Clinical Psychologist in the Court Order, but the Panel noted that whenever she did find out she did not appear to have raised the issue with the Court. The Panel considered that if the insertion of Clinical Psychologist had clearly been an error, then on becoming aware of what had occurred Ms McKenzie would have immediately raised the matter with the Court. The Panel considered that it was inherently implausible that she became aware of such a mistake and did not raise it with the Court. The Panel also took into account that there was no evidence before it that any other party to the Court proceedings had raised any concern about the use of Clinical Psychologist. In these circumstances the Panel did not accept that the use of these words in the Court Order was an error and that it correctly reflected what had been directed by the Court at the Case Management Meeting on 23 April 2018. The Panel therefore determined that the Court Order expressly required the assessment of SUA to be carried out by a Clinical Psychologist.

122. The Panel therefore went on to consider whether the Registrant was registered as a Clinical Psychologist and/or qualified to carry out such an assessment.

123. The Panel took into account the witness statement of Adam Mawson which stated that the Registrant was not registered under any modality other than as an Educational Psychologist. This witness statement was not the subject of any challenge. The Panel was satisfied therefore on the balance of probabilities that the Registrant was not registered as a Clinical Psychologist.

124. The Panel also took into account the evidence of the Registrant and Dr Hymans that the Registrant had sufficient training and experience to carry out the assessment required in the Court Order. The Panel noted that when asked to provide examples of specific training undertaken prior to April 2018 that would have qualified him to undertake the assessment he was unable to do so. Further, the Panel consider that the Registrant’s evidence that his “vast experience” over the years prior to April 2018 qualified him to undertake the assessment was again vague, lacking in detail and there was no specification of exactly how any experience resulted in him being qualified to undertake such an assessment.

125. The Panel also took into account that Dr Hymans accepted that the training by the Registrant referred to in his report took place after the assessment of SUA. He had relied on and accepted without investigation the Registrant’s assertions that his general experience prior to April 2018 qualified him to carry out the assessment required by the Court Order.

126. The Panel did not consider the evidence of Ms McKenzie assisted it in relation to this matter.

127. The Panel therefore concluded that there was no cogent reliable and corroborated evidence before it that, on the balance of probabilities, the Registrant was qualified to accept the instructions pursuant to the Court Order to conduct and prepare an independent expert report of SUA.

128. Allegation 1 is therefore found proved.

2. Between 30 April 2018 and 13 June 2018, you conducted a clinical psychological assessment of Service User A when you were not registered and/or qualified to do so.

129. Found proved.

130. In considering this Allegation, the Panel took into account all relevant evidence including the evidence of Dr Alwin, the Registrant, Dr Hymans and Ms McKenzie.

131. The Panel again noted that there was no dispute between the parties that during the period set out in the Allegation the Registrant conducted a psychological assessment of SUA.

132. The Panel noted that it was the position of the Registrant himself that this assessment was a clinical assessment and this was also the position of Dr Alwin and Dr Hymans.

133. For the reasons set out in Allegation 1 the Panel has determined that, on the balance of probabilities, during the period set out in Allegation 2 the Registrant was neither registered nor qualified to carry out such a clinical psychological assessment.

134. Allegation 2 is therefore found proved.

3. Between 30 April 2018 and 13 June 2018, you conducted psychometric tests during your psychological assessment of Service User A. In that you used the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory Ill (MCMl-I11) psychometric test in you psychological assessment of Service User A.

135. Found Proved.

136. In considering this Allegation, the Panel took into account all relevant evidence including the evidence of Dr Alwin, the Registrant and Dr Hymans.

137. The Panel took into account that the Registrant admitted that he conducted psychometric tests during his psychological assessment of SUA by using the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory Ill (MCMl-I11) psychometric test in his psychological assessment of SUA.

138. The Panel also took into account that both Dr Alwin and Dr Hymans had given evidence that this occurred.

139. The Panel therefore determined that, on the balance of probabilities between 30 April 2018 and 13 June 2018, you conducted psychometric tests during your psychological assessment of SUA in that you used the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory Ill (MCMl-I11) psychometric test in you psychological assessment of SUA.

140. Allegation 3 is therefore found proved.

4. You reported your opinion and/or commented on the diagnosis of a personality disorder which is a matter for psychiatric expertise.

141. Not proved.

142. In considering this Allegation, the Panel took into account all relevant evidence including the evidence of Dr Alwin, the Registrant and Dr Hymans.

143. The Panel took into account that Dr Alwin had clearly stated that there was no evidence to support this Allegation and that he did not support this Allegation as although reference was made in the Registrant’s report to personality disorder that the Registrant had not made any diagnosis.

144. The Panel took into account that this was also the position of the Registrant and Dr Hymans.

145. There was no other evidence before the Panel in relation to this Allegation.

146. The Panel therefore determined that, on the balance of probabilities, the Registrant had not reported his opinion and/or commented on the diagnosis of a personality disorder.

147. Allegation 4 is found not proved.

5. On or around 13 June 2018, produced a written expert witness report in respect of the clinical psychological assessment you conducted of Service User A, when you were not registered and/or qualified to do so.

148. Found Proved.

149. In considering this Allegation, the Panel took into account all relevant evidence including the evidence of Dr Alwin, the Registrant, Dr Hymans and Ms McKenzie.

150. Again the Panel noted that it was not a matter of dispute that the Registrant produced the written report referred to in the Allegation.

151. Again, for the reasons set out in Allegation 1 the Panel has determined that, on the balance of probabilities, during the period set out in Allegation 2 the Registrant was neither registered nor qualified to carry out such a clinical psychological assessment.

6. In respect of particulars 1 - 5 you have worked beyond your scope of practice.

152. Found Proved.

153. In considering this Allegation, the Panel took into account all relevant evidence including the evidence of Dr Alwin, the Registrant and Dr Hymans.

154. Having found Allegation 1,2 and 5 proved for the reason set out therein the Panel was satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, in acting as set out in these Allegations, the Registrant had acted beyond the scope of his practice.

155. In respect of Allegation 3, the Panel took into account the Registrant’s evidence that he was qualified to use the MCMI-III psychometric test in 2018. The Panel took into account that this was also accepted by both Dr Alwin and Dr Hymans.

156. However, the Panel considered that Allegation 4 went beyond the actual use of the test as it narrates that the test was used in the Registrant’s psychological assessment of SUA.

157. For the reasons set out in Allegation 1, the Panel had determined that the Registrant was neither registered nor qualified to carry out this assessment.

158. The Panel therefore determined that, whilst the Registrant may have been qualified to use test, on the balance of probabilities, its use in the context of carrying out a psychological assessment of SUA was beyond the scope of the Registrant’s practice.

159. Allegation 6 is therefore found proved in relation to Allegation 1,2,3 and 5.

No information currently available

This hearing adjourned, part heard. The date for the reconvened hearing is to be confirmed

History of Hearings for Graham Flatman

Date	Panel	Hearing type	Outcomes / Status
02/04/2024	Conduct and Competence Committee	Final Hearing	Suspended
23/10/2023	Conduct and Competence Committee	Final Hearing	Adjourned part heard