Dr David Lee

Preliminary Matters

Application to amend

1. Mr Micklewright made an application to amend Particular 3 of the Allegation by deleting the words “and/or sexual”. These words were introduced by a panel of the Conduct and Competence Committee at a hearing of this case, which was listed adjourned part-heard on 8 October 2024 following a decision of the panel that the Particulars of Allegation did not sufficiently capture the nature and extent of the Registrant’s alleged misconduct, thereby risking under-prosecution.

2. Mr Micklewright submitted that the addition of the words “and/or sexual” was misconceived and was based on a misunderstanding of the decision of Foster J in GMC v Haris [2020] EWHC 2518 (Admin), in which she suggested that, in order to avoid the difficulty of proving the Registrant’s state of mind, as required where it is alleged that the Registrant was sexually motivated, the Regulator should consider alleging that the conduct in question was “sexual”, by analogy with the definition of “sexual” under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Mr Micklewright submitted that allegations that conduct was “sexual” would apply only to physical acts and not to messaging.

3. Ms Ferrario supported the application to amend.

4. The Panel had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on “Making Decisions on a Registrant’s State of Mind” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel noted that at paragraph 14, the Practice Note stated:
“Panels will be assisted in considering the test for a criminal offence of sexual assault, for instance, whether the conduct was:
a. …….
b. an act that because of its nature may be sexual, and because of the circumstances is sexual. An example of this might be where a registrant sends a text message to a complainant which is capable of being read in different ways, one of which is sexual, and the circumstances suggest that the registrant intended it to be read in that way”.

5. The Panel considered that Mr Micklewright’s submission gave too narrow a scope and meaning to the term “sexual”, which, adopting the HCPTS Practice Note, could potentially relate to other conduct, such as texting, of a sexual nature. The Panel therefore decided to refuse the application to amend.

Hearing in private

6. Ms Ferrario made an application for any reference to the Registrant’s health and private life to be heard in private. Mr Micklewright supported that application.

7. The Panel had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on “Conducting Hearings in Private” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel granted Ms Ferrario’s application for parts of the hearing to be heard in private. The Panel further determined that the entirety of the Registrant’s evidence should be heard in private on the grounds that it was inextricably linked to evidence relating to his health and private life.

Background

8. The Registrant is registered with the HCPC as a Practitioner Psychologist.

9. The case against the Registrant concerns his alleged inappropriate sexual misconduct towards three service users, referred to as Service Users A, B and C.

10. Concerns were raised with the HCPC by colleagues and Person A, that the Registrant did not maintain professional boundaries with service users. Further concerns were raised that between September 2018 and July 2019, the Registrant offered to see female service users for therapy sessions at their homes at a reduced fee.

11. On 25 June 2019, the HCPC received a referral from Person A regarding the Registrant.

12. On 26 April 2020, a separate referral was submitted to the HCPC by LS. LS worked with Registrant at HealthBay Holistics Centre (the Centre) from September 2018 until June 2019. Patients had raised concerns with LS directly about patient care issues. Ms LS also reported having been notified about the commencement of a relationship between the Registrant and Service User A, a vulnerable patient with a diagnosed personality disorder. Female patients already reported to Ms LS that the Registrant had started offering therapy sessions at home for a ten-pound discount, which was against the employment contract between the Registrant and the Centre.

13. The referrals to the HCPC resulted in these proceedings.

14. On 8 February 2023, a panel of the Conduct and Competence Committee, following a substantive hearing, determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired by reason of misconduct, having found the factual allegations (which were admitted) proven.

15. On 14 April 2023 the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care appealed against the decision of the panel on various grounds, and the appeal was allowed by consent which determined that the case should be remitted to a differently constituted panel for rehearing on the basis that the charges be amended to include an allegation that the Registrant’s actions towards Service User C were sexually motivated.

16. It was further ordered that the written and oral evidence of the witnesses called on behalf of the HCPC be retained, such that the new panel might have regard to that evidence without the witnesses needing to be recalled.

The hearing

17. The Panel was provided by the HCPC with a hearing bundle which including all the evidence at the substantive hearing before the previous panel.

18. The Panel was also provided by the Registrant with a bundle containing his witness statement, reflections, testimonials and training certificates.

19. At the outset of the hearing the Registrant admitted Particulars 1 a), 1 b), 1 c) and 2 in their entirety. The Panel found each of these Particulars proved on the basis of the Registrant’s admissions.

20. The Registrant denied Particular 3 which alleged that his conduct in relation to Particulars 1 a) and/or 1 b) and/or 1 c) and/or 2 were sexually motivated and/or sexual.

21. The HCPC called no evidence but relied on the evidence before the previous panel.

22. The Registrant adopted his written statement as his evidence-in-chief and gave further oral evidence in response to cross-examination and questions from the Panel.

23. The Panel adopted the submission of Mr Micklewright that it should determine the Particulars of Allegation in chronological order, starting with Particular 1 c), followed by Particulars 1 b) and 1 a).

24. Mr Micklewright submitted that, in the event that the Panel found sexual motivation proved in Particular 3, proved in relation to Particular 1 c), such a finding would be cross-admissible to establish propensity in relation to the issue of sexual motivation in relation to Particulars 1 b) and 1 a). The Panel was referred to the judgement of PSA v. GMC & Garrard [2025] EWHC 318 (Admin). Ms Ferrario did not disagree with this submission.

The Panel’s decision

25. 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.

26. The Panel took into account the submissions of Mr Micklewright on behalf of the HCPC and Ms Ferrario on behalf of the Registrant. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

27. The Panel made the following findings of fact:

Particular 3 in relation to Particular 1 c) - Sexual motivation proved

28. Service User C was a former patient of the Registrant. She had been an in-patient at a Specialist Unit from the age of 16 to 21, suffering from PTSD. Within that period, the Registrant had acted as her therapist. In 2017, some 3 years after completing her therapy with the Registrant, he unexpectedly contacted her on Facebook. After the exchange of some initial pleasantries, the Registrant’s communications with her, as alleged and admitted in Particular 1 c) and admitted by him, became explicitly sexual in nature. The Panel noted the Registrant’s evidence that at the time of sending these messages, he was so heavily intoxicated by alcohol that he was subject to “blackouts” and had no recollection of sending the messages. He denied any sexual motivation, saying that his libido at the time was at “zero” and that, in any event, he did not find Service User C sexually attractive or appealing. The Panel was willing to accept that the Registrant’s inhibitions were impaired by excessive consumption of alcohol. The Panel, however, was satisfied on the evidence that there was no plausible explanation for the Registrant’s messages to Service User C other than that he was in pursuit of sexual gratification and/or a sexual relationship with her. The Panel noted that Service User C was so upset by the Registrant’s messages to her that she informed her mother of what had taken place and the concerns were in due course referred to the HCPC. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant’s conduct as alleged and admitted in Particular 1 c) was sexually motivated and therefore found Particular 1 c) proved.

Particular 3 in relation to Particular 1 b) - Sexual motivation proved

29. Service User B was a former patient of the Registrant. She had been a PhD student in Manchester and the Registrant saw her in his capacity as a privately practising psychologist. She had complex issues relating to her father and brother. The last therapy session with the Registrant ended in about March 2016. In 2018, Person A discovered that the Registrant was following Service User B on Instagram and was exchanging messages with her, as alleged in Particular 1 b), including an offer to keep her company. It was unclear from the evidence whether it was the Registrant or Service User B who initiated contact with the other on Instagram. However, the Panel noted that there was no therapeutic or other reason for the Registrant to have contact with this former patient. She was young, female and vulnerable. As her therapist, the Registrant had been in a position of trust. The Registrant admitted in his evidence that he had found Service User B “cheeky” and “flirtatious” with him in his previous contact with her as her therapist, at which time she had also suggested that they meet for a drink. He denied that he had any sexual motivation in resuming contact with her in 2018 and said that he wanted to make an emotional connection with her because he felt emotionally deprived, lonely and socially isolated. The Panel found the Registrant’s explanation that he was merely seeking an emotional connection with Service User B implausible. The Panel was satisfied that in following Service User B on Instagram and offering to keep her company, he was sexually motivated, in that he was in pursuit of sexual gratification or a future sexual relationship with her.

30. The Panel derived support in its finding of sexual motivation in relation to Particulars 1 b) from its finding regarding his conduct towards Service User C. With regard to Particulars 1 c) and 1 b), he contacted former patients, both being young, female and potentially vulnerable, for no apparent reason. In each case, he sought to set about establishing a personal relationship, which had no clinical or professional justification. In each case, he suggested meeting. In each case he sought to justify his conduct by asserting the need for an emotional but asexual connection. In the Panel’s judgement, the Registrant showed a propensity to target former patients for conduct which was sexually motivated.

Particular 3 in relation to Particular 1 a) - Sexual motivation proved

31. Service User A received therapy from the Registrant at the HealthBay Holistics Centre in Dubai in 2019. She was diagnosed with a personality disorder and described as very vulnerable. She was in an abusive relationship with her partner. Person A, discovered messages between the Registrant and Service User A, which included declarations of love and plans to be in a future relationship together. The Registrant told Service User A that he wanted to marry her. He arranged to provide private therapy sessions at her home. The relationship between the Registrant and Service User A ended when Person A disclosed to Service User A that she was aware of the relationship. Service User A then sought to block any further contact with the Registrant, which the Registrant initially ignored and persisted in communicating with her, including sending her flowers. The Registrant denied any sexual motivation in his admitted communications with Service User A, as alleged in Particular 1 a). He asserted that he was seeking an emotional connection with her and fantasised about a long term relationship with her. He pointed out that Service User A was a Muslim and would not therefore have agreed to engage in a sexual relationship with him outside marriage. In the Panel’s judgement, it was clear that the Registrant was motivated by a desire to enter into a full, intimate relationship with Service User A, which would implicitly involve a sexual element, albeit delayed until such time as they could each extricate themselves from their respective relationships. The Panel, therefore found sexual motivation proved in relation to Particular 1 a).

32. The Panel derived support in its finding of sexual motivation in relation to Particular 1 a) from its finding regarding his conduct towards Service Users C and B. In the case of Service User A, she also was a young, female patient whom he knew to be vulnerable. He used and abused his position as her therapist to establish a personal relationship, which had no clinical or professional justification. In relation to each of these Service Users, he sought to justify his conduct by asserting the need for an emotional but asexual connection. In the Panel’s judgement, the Registrant showed a propensity to use his position for the purposes which were sexually motivated.

Particular 3 in relation to Particular 2

33. The Panel accepted the Registrant’s undisputed evidence that he offered to see both male and female Service Users at their respective homes. He explained that he had financial difficulties at the time and that private consultations, albeit in breach of his contract of employment, were a way for him to make extra money and make ends meet.

34. The Panel found that there was insufficient evidence on which it could conclude that his offer to see female service users for therapy sessions at their homes was sexually motivated or that it was sexual. Particular 3 is therefore not proved in relation to Particular 2.

Statutory Grounds

35. The Panel went on to consider whether the facts found proved in relation to the Particulars of Allegation, or any of them, amounted to misconduct.

36. 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.

37. The Panel took into account the submissions on behalf of the HCPC and the Registrant respectively and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel noted that the Registrant admitted that the proven Particulars constituted misconduct.

38. The Panel found the Registrant to have been in breach of the following standards of HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics (2016):

• Standard 1.7: 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 6.3: You must make changes to how you practise or stop practising, if your physical or mental health may affect your performance or judgement, or put others at risk for any other reason
• Standard 7.4: You must make sure that the safety and well-being of service users always comes before any professional or other loyalties
• Standard 9.1: You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession

39. The Registrant engaged in sexually motivated conduct and communications with Service User A, a patient, whom, as her treating therapist, he knew to be emotionally vulnerable. He also had unsolicited, sexually motivated communications with two former patients, Service Users B and C, whom he knew to be vulnerable. The conduct in respect of these three service users occurred over a period of three consecutive years, 2017-2019, and represented a pattern of impulsive, sexually motivated behaviour. In each case, the Panel found the Registrant to have been guilty of a serious breach of professional boundaries and abuse of his position as a therapist. That position provided him with an intimate knowledge of the vulnerabilities of each of these service users, which he exploited for his own self-centred purposes. The Panel also considered that his offer to see female patients at home to have been in breach of professional boundaries.

40. The Panel found that each of the Particulars of Allegation constituted misconduct and that such misconduct was extremely serious.

Decision on impairment

41. The Panel heard evidence from the Registrant. He stated that he accepted the Panel’s findings that his conduct towards each of the service users had been sexually motivated, albeit that he had not been conscious of this at the time. He maintained that his primary motivation had been to establish an emotional connection with each of them but now accepted that there was a sexual element in his motivation. He explained by way of context, not justification, that his personal life had been in crisis during the relevant period. He admitted his misconduct, for which he expressed remorse. He acknowledged that his behavour was reprehensible and inexcusable. He accepted that his misconduct had caused significant harm to each of the service users and caused reputational damage to the profession, thereby undermining public confidence. He explained the steps that he had taken since 2019 by way of remediation, which included:

[IN PRIVATE]

42. The Registrant also gave evidence of the changes in his personal life for the good.

43. The Panel heard evidence from the following witnesses on behalf of the Registrant:
[IN PRIVATE]

44. Each of the witnesses referred to above spoke of the Registrant’s remorse for, and understanding of his past misconduct and his commitment to ensuring that it would not be repeated.

45. In addition to the oral evidence of these witnesses, the Registrant provided the Panel with a bundle of documents, including:

• an extensive personal reflection and action plan to address remediation
• recent testimonials from professional colleagues, patients and others who commended him for his character and professionalism
• numerous training certificates, relating to relevant courses addressing the specific concerns in this case.

46. The Panel took into account the submissions on behalf of the HCPC and the Registrant respectively.

47. The Panel had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on “Fitness to Practise Impairment” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

48. 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.

49. With regard to the “personal” component, the Panel took into account that the Registrant had admitted the Particulars 1 a), 1 b) and 1 c) of the Allegation and his breach of professional boundaries to the detriment of the service users concerned. The Panel accepted that the Registrant had expressed genuine remorse and that he had developed insight into all aspects of his misconduct: the causes of his behaviour, the harm caused to the service users, the damage to public confidence in the profession and what steps he needed to take to avoid any repetition. The Panel was further satisfied that, over the period of six years since the last incident, the Registrant had undertaken substantial remediation to the extent that the risk of repetition was minimal. The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was not currently impaired in respect of the “personal” component.

50. With regard to the “public” component of impairment, the Panel did not consider that the Registrant’s unrestricted practice would constitute a risk to the public.

51. The Panel, however, was mindful of the need to maintain proper standards of conduct on the part of registrants and to maintain public confidence in the profession and the HCPC as its Regulator. The Panel considered the Registrant’s misconduct towards Service Users A, B and C, his breach of professional boundaries and his abuse of his position of trust, to have been so serious as to require some mark to be placed on registration to send a clear message to the profession and the public that such misconduct was unacceptable and would not be tolerated. In the Panel’s judgement, public confidence in the profession and in the HCPC would be undermined if there were no finding of impairment. Accordingly, the Panel found the Registrant’s fitness to practise to be impaired in respect of the “public” component.

Decision on sanction

52. The Panel took into account the submissions on behalf of the HCPC and the Registrant.

53. 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.

54. By way of mitigation:

• the Registrant was subject to a number of difficulties and extreme pressures in his private life at the relevant time which adversely affected his judgement but have since been resolved;
• he has expressed remorse for his misconduct and has made a fulsome apology in this hearing;
• he has demonstrated good insight into the causes of his misconduct and its negative effects on service users and the reputation of the profession;
• he has taken substantial steps by way of remediation;
• he has continued to practise since the last incident of misconduct in 2019 without any concerns having been raised about his conduct;
• he has provided a number of recent supportive testimonials from professional colleagues and patients; and
• the Panel was satisfied that the risk of repetition is minimal.

55. By way of aggravating factors:

• the Registrant engaged in sexually motivated communications with three service users over a period of three years. One of these service users was undergoing therapy with the Registrant at the material time;
• his misconduct in respect of each service user breached professional boundaries, betrayed their trust in him as a therapist and was an abuse of his position of power;
• each of the service users was known to the Registrant as being vulnerable by reason of his having acted as their therapist in matters relating to mental ill health;
• in respect of Service User A his misconduct continued over a period of several months and persisted after he had acknowledged that it was wrong; and
• his misconduct caused emotional and/or psychological harm to each of the service users.

56. The case is too serious for the Panel to take no further action.

57. A Caution Order would not reflect the seriousness of the Registrant’s misconduct.

58. A Conditions of Practice Order would not be appropriate because there have been, and are, no clinical concerns about the Registrant’s practice.

59. The Panel considered the indications for a Suspension Order, namely:

• The concerns represent a serious breach of the Standards of conduct, performance and ethics;
• The Registrant has insight;
• The issues are unlikely to be repeated; and
• There is evidence to suggest the Registrant is likely to be able to resolve or remedy his failings.

60. The Panel considered whether to impose a Striking Off Order and noted that it is a sanction of last resort for serious acts, which may include abuse of professional position, including vulnerability, and sexual misconduct. However, the Panel also noted that such an order is likely to be appropriate where, in particular the Registrant:

• Lacks insight;
• Continues to repeat the misconduct; and
• Is unwilling to resolve matters.

None of the bullet points above apply in the present case and the Panel decided, on balance, that a Striking Off Order is not required in this case.

61. With regard to the length of the Suspension Order, the Panel noted that the Registrant had already been subject to the equivalent of 8 ½ months’ suspension (including an interim suspension order for 28 days) following the decision of the panel at the previous substantive hearing, which was subject to a successful appeal. The Panel considered whether that period of suspension should be taken into account to reduce any period of suspension this Panel should impose, having regard to dicta in the case of Adil v General Medical Council [2023] EWHC 797 (Admin). The Panel, however, considered that the maximum period of 12 months’ suspension was required to mark the seriousness of the misconduct which it had found proved. Accordingly, the Panel imposed a Suspension Order for a period of 12 months as being the appropriate and proportionate sanction.

62. At a future review of this order, the reviewing panel may be assisted by the following:

• Evidence of the Registrant’s continued engagement with the HCPC and his attendance at the hearing;
• Evidence that he has maintained his remedial action plan;
• Evidence that he has maintained his Continuing Professional Development; and
• Testimonials about his practice from fellow professionals and service users about his practice.

ORDER: That the Registrar is directed to annotate the Register entry for Dr David Lee with a Suspension Order for 12 months on the date this order comes into effect.

Right of Appeal
An appeal may be made to the High Court in England and Wales against the Panel’s decision and the order it has made.

Under Article 29(10) of the Health Professions Order 2001, any appeal must be made within 28 days of the date when this notice is served on you. The Panel’s order will not take effect until the appeal period has expired or, if you appeal, until that appeal is disposed of or withdrawn.

Interim Order
Application

1. Mr Micklewright, on behalf of the HCPC, applied for an Interim Suspension Order to cover the appeal period before the substantive Suspension Order would come into effect or, if the Registrant appealed, until such time as the appeal was withdrawn or otherwise finally disposed of. This application was made on the grounds of it being in the public interest.

2. Ms Ferrario submitted that an interim order was unnecessary.

Decision

3. The Panel was satisfied that an Interim Order was in the public interest, for the same reasons as set out in the substantive decision. Given the seriousness of the allegations found proved, and the Panel’s decision to impose a Suspension Order for the maximum period of 12 months, members of the public would be shocked, and their confidence in the process would be undermined, if the Registrant were able to practise pending the period of a potential appeal. The Panel noted that the appeal process can take a considerable time, and therefore decided that the appropriate order was an Interim Suspension Order for a period of 18 months.

History of Hearings for Dr David Lee