Robert Lambert – Simpson

As a registered Practitioner Psychologist (PYL34515) your fitness to
practise is impaired by reason of your misconduct and/or lack of
competence. In that:

1. You provided an inadequate Psychology Report to Newcastle- UponTyne Crown Court regarding Service User A (SUA), dated 18 January
2019, in that you:

a) did not provide adequate detail within your report, in that you:

i) did not report having any discussion with SUA regarding their
presenting history

ii) did not provide adequate detail regarding SUA’s
biopsychosocial history

iii) did not provide any information regarding whether SUA had felt
manipulated during the police interview(s)

iv) did not provide adequate information relating to SUA’s recall of
their mental state during and/or after the police interview(s)

v) did not state the length of time of the assessment session(s)
you carried out with SUA, and/or

vi) included conflict of interest statements written for the Family
Court rather than the Newcastle-Upon-Tyne Crown Court

b) did not provide adequate detail regarding the assessment methods
you used, in that you:

i) did not provide and/or report on the results from the Sexual
Violence Risk Assessment 20 (SVR-20) you carried out for SUA

ii) did not provide any assessment data for the Millon Clinical
Multiaxial Inventory-IV (MCMI-IV) assessment undertaken by
you, and/or

iii) did not contain specific commentary or narrative regarding SUA
when discussing the MCMI-IV assessment

c) applied the Saint Louis University Mental Status (SLUMS)
assessment method to SUA, which was inappropriate as they were
not diagnosed and/or did not present with dementia and/or
Alzheimer’s disease

d) did not provide an explanation and/or your rationale for the diagnoses
you attributed to SUA

e) diagnosed SUA with the health condition listed at Schedule A, without
providing any indication of the cause

f) diagnosed SUA with the health condition listed at Schedule B, without
providing any description of how this manifested symptomatically
and/or behaviourally

g) did not tailor your ‘Summary and Recommendations’ to SUA
specifically and/or did not provide any therapy recommendations for
SUA

h) included information within your report regarding disassociation and/or
depersonalisation that is not relevant to SUA

i) stated SUA would need an intermediary present during police
questioning and throughout the legal process, without providing
sufficient rationale and/or evidence to support this statement

j) did not sufficiently answer the referral questions asked of you, in that
you:

i) did not adequately discuss SUA’s mental health status at the
time of assessment

ii) did not adequately discuss SUA’s mental health status while
they were in custody and/or during police questioning

iii) did not address how police questioning and/or time in custody
impacted on SUA’s vulnerability, and/or

iv) did not provide a sufficient answer to the referral questions
regarding whether SUA is suggestible.

k) did not adequately reference your report, in that you:

i) did not reference quoted text within the report, and/or

ii) provided the reference “(Pfizer, 2017a)”, without listing this
reference in your reference list.

2. When providing a response as to why the MCMI-IV assessment data
was not included within your report, you stated it would be unusual to
provide this assessment data within such a report, or words to that
effect, when this is not the case.

3. You demonstrated reluctance in providing your assessment data to the
complainant and/or the Crown Court when requested to do so.

4. You provided an inadequate addendum Psychology Report to the
Newcastle-Upon-Tyne Crown Court regarding SUA, dated 19 August
2019, in that you:

a) used the data from previous reports regarding SUA to complete this
report

b) provided unclear and/or inappropriate reasoning for SUA to require
an intermediatory

c) did not carry out a suggestibility assessment, as requested

d) did not sufficiently answer the referral questions asked of you, in that
you:

i) did not adequately discuss SUA’s mental health status at the
time of assessment

ii) did not adequately discuss SUA’s mental health status while
they were in custody and/or during police questioning

iii) did not address how police questioning and/or time in custody
impacted on SUA’s vulnerability, and/or

iv) did not provide a sufficient answer to the referral questions
regarding whether SUA is suggestible.

5. You provided an inadequate addendum Psychology Report to the
Newcastle-Upon-Tyne Crown Court regarding SUA, dated 18 October
2019, in that you:

a) did not provide adequate detail regarding the assessment method
used, in that you:

i) assessed SUA using the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale
(GSS) 2 without adequate explanation for not using GSS 1,
given the circumstances

ii) referred to GSS 1 in the results section for your assessment,
yet stated SUA had been assessed using the GSS 2 elsewhere
in your report

iii) completed the GSS 2 form incorrectly, in that you used only
ticks to record your results when these should have been
reported using narrative

iv) provided incorrect scores for the results of the GSS 2
assessment, and/or

v) stated extensive testing led your suggestibility diagnosis, when
only a GSS 2 assessment was carried out.

b) did not sufficiently answer the referral question asked of you

c) did not adequately reference quoted text within this report.

6. The matters set out in particular 1, 2 4 and/or 5 amount to misconduct
and/or lack of competence.

7. The matter set out at particular 3 amount to misconduct.

8. By reason of your misconduct and/or lack of competence, your fitness
to practise is impaired.