Sally Carson

Preliminary Matters

1. The Panel has been convened to consider an application made jointly by the HCPC and the Registrant that the HCPC’s Allegation should be resolved by the Registrant agreeing to be removed from the HCPC Register and the HCPC withdrawing the Allegation. Both the HCPC and the Registrant have entered into a formal, written Voluntary Removal Agreement (“VRA”). The purpose of the present hearing is for the Panel to decide if the VRA should be permitted to take effect.

Service of the Notice of Hearing

2. The Panel was provided with an unredacted copy of an email sent to the Registrant on 16 September 2025. The email informed her of the date and time of this hearing, as well as the fact that the hearing would be conducted by Microsoft Teams. The Panel was satisfied that this communication constituted a valid Notice of Hearing as it afforded an opportunity for the Registrant to engage in the hearing.

Proceeding with the hearing in the Registrant’s absence

3. After the Panel stated that it was satisfied that there had been good service of the Notice of Hearing, the Presenting Officer applied for a direction that the hearing should proceed in the Registrant’s absence. The Panel was provided with a separate bundle of documents that included communications with the Registrant that were relevant to this issue.

4. Having carefully considered the matter, the Panel concluded that the hearing should proceed in the Registrant’s absence. The reasons for this decision were as follows:

• It was clear from the documents provided to the Panel that the Registrant knew that the matter had been listed for hearing today.

• It was also clear from the documents that the Registrant had expressed the view that she would not be attending the hearing.

• Furthermore, there was no request by the Registrant that the hearing should take place on some other occasion.

• Accordingly, the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had voluntarily absented herself from the hearing.

• There is a clear public interest in the matter being decided without undue further delay, not least because the VRA was signed five months ago.

• Additionally, the Registrant had expressed concern over the length of time it had taken for the VRA issue to be decided.

Background

5. The Registrant is registered in the Arts Therapists part of the HCPC Register.

6. The matters that gave rise to the HCPC’s fitness to practise proceedings arose while the Registrant was employed as a School Psychotherapist.

7. On 12 September 2023, the Registrant referred herself to the HCPC. She disclosed that she had been suspended pending an investigation.

8. On around 8 September 2023, Student A made a disclosure to staff at the School with regard to sexual abuse. Student A told the School that he had informed the Registrant at the time of the abuse, in around January 2023. The exact date that he informed the Registrant is not clear as there is no record of the conversation, but the Registrant accepts that she was made aware of the alleged abuse prior to September 2023. The Registrant did not inform the Designated Safeguarding Lead (DSL) of the disclosure or record the disclosure on the Child Protection Online Monitoring Systems (CPOMS), the safeguarding reporting service used by the School, in line with the School’s Safeguarding Policy.

9. When the School asked the Registrant about the disclosure on 11 September 2023, she confirmed that she already knew and admitted that she had not recorded it. When asked why she had not reported the disclosure in relation to Student A, the Registrant referred to being “blindsided”.

10. On 28 September 2023, Student B made a disclosure to the School that he had attempted to take his own life. He further disclosed that he had previously attempted to take his life in April 2023 and had informed the Registrant at the time. There was no record of this disclosure on the CPOMS system.

11. When the School asked the Registrant about this, she said that she had some brief notes of her conversation with Student B at home but admitted that she had not made a record of this on the CPOMS system in line with the School’s Policy. No copy of the Registrant’s notes relating to this conversation with Student B had been provided to the HCPC.

12. The School conducted an investigation and found that the Registrant had used the CPOMS reporting system at least 140 times in relation to other disclosures or incidents regarding other students. The School was therefore satisfied that the Registrant knew how to use the system.

13. The Registrant made full admissions during the School’s investigation as to her shortcomings involving Student A’s and Student B’s disclosures.

14. On 13 March 2025, a panel of the Investigating Committee decided that there was a case for the Registrant to answer in relation the following Allegation:

As a registered Arts therapist (AS14047):

(1) Between January 2023 and September 2023, you did not take appropriate action to report and/or record a safeguarding disclosure made to you by Student A, in that:

a. You did not record the disclosure on the Child Protection Online Monitoring System (CPOMS).

b. You did not inform the Designated Safeguarding Lead (DSL).

(2) On or around April 2023, you did not take appropriate action to inform and/or record a safeguarding disclosure made to you by Student B, in that:

a. You did not record the disclosure on the Child Protection Online Monitoring System (CPOMS).

b. You did not inform the Designated Safeguarding Lead (DSL).

(3) The matters set out in Particulars 1 and 2 constitute misconduct.

(4) By reason of the matters set out above, your fitness to practice is impaired by reason of misconduct.

15. Following the decision of the Investigating Committee that there was a case to answer in relation to the Allegation, discussions took place between the parties concerning voluntary removal, and these discussions resulted in the HCPC agreeing to voluntary removal as an appropriate disposal. The VRA document was sent to the Registrant and she signed it on 29 April 2025. The HCPC’s Head of Fitness to Practise Legal Services signed the VRA on 9 May 2025.

16. The Registrant has made full admissions in relation to the matters investigated by the HCPC and has confirmed that she is not currently working and has no intention of returning to practise, having retired.

Submissions to the Panel

17. In advance of the hearing, on behalf of the HCPC, the Panel was provided with a Skeleton Argument dated 7 October 2025. This document provided a succinct summary of the matter that was consistent with the information contained in the main hearing bundle of documents. It urged the Panel to have regard to the HCPTS Practice Note to which further reference is made below and submitted that giving effect to the VRA would secure an appropriate level of public protection. It also submitted that giving effect to the VRA would not be detrimental to the wider public interest.

18. At the hearing, the Presenting Officer made brief submissions and relied upon the Skeleton Argument.

19. There were no submissions made by the Registrant that were specifically addressed to the Panel for consideration at the hearing. However, included in the documents provided to the Panel were a number of representations made by the Registrant and, given the nature of the hearing, the Panel viewed her signing of the VRA as itself a submission of the outcome she sought.

Decision

20. The Panel heeded the terms of the HCPTS Practice Note entitled “Disposal of Cases by Consent”, dated March 2018, and it accepted the advice it received from the Legal Assessor. Accordingly, the Panel accepted that it is for it, the Panel, to decide whether the voluntary removal agreement should be given effect; the fact that the HCPC considers that the VRA being allowed to take effect would be consistent with its statutory objective of protecting the public is a factor to which the Panel is entitled to have regard, but it is not determinative of the issue. Consistent with the advice it received, the Panel considered four issues on which it should be satisfied before it would be appropriate to accede to the application that the VRA should be permitted to take effect. Those issues were:

• Given the serious consequences of the VRA taking effect, that, in seeking voluntary removal, the Registrant has made an application that is both unequivocal and informed.

• That a clear admission of the Allegation had been made by the Registrant. This is an important requirement because the admission of the Allegation would be a factor to be considered in the event that the Registrant seeks re-admission to the HCPC Register after a period of five years has passed.

• That giving effect to the VRA would provide a proper degree of public protection.

• That there were no other public interest considerations which would make the expedited disposal of the Allegation by way of a VRA inappropriate.

21. The conclusions of the Panel on the four issues it was advised to consider were as follows:

• The Panel was entirely satisfied that the Registrant is fully aware of the VRA process and the consequences of the VRA being given effect. Commencing in April 2025, and extending until the current month, full and proper explanations of the effect of a VRA had been explained to the Registrant by the HCPC’s Solicitors and the Registrant had communicated her understanding of this.

• The Panel was also satisfied that the Registrant has fully admitted the HCPC’s Allegation and the particulars of it. The Registrant had admitted the Allegation not only in correspondence but more specifically by signing the VRA.

• The consequences of permitting the VRA to have effect are indistinguishable from the consequences of a striking off order, which would be the most severe sanction that could be imposed were the case to proceed to a substantive hearing in the ordinary way and the Allegation to be proven against the Registrant. For that reason, the Panel concluded that a proper degree of public protection would be afforded.

• When the Panel considered whether there were any wider public interest considerations which suggested that the application should not be acceded to, it acknowledged that there would be cases in which the Allegation would be of matters so egregious that it would not be appropriate to bypass a public airing of the issues at a substantive hearing even if the possible sanction outcome could be no more severe than the effect of a VRA. However, having carefully considered the matter, the Panel did not consider that the circumstances of this case were such that this consideration was engaged. While acknowledging the seriousness of the Allegation, the Panel was nevertheless satisfied that informed members of the public, as well as fellow professionals, would acknowledge that in all the circumstances of the case it would be appropriate for the VRA to be allowed to take effect. Trust and confidence in the regulation of the Registrant’s profession would not be diminished by the absence of a full public hearing of the Allegation.

22. In the light of these conclusions the Panel finds that it is appropriate to accede to the application that the VRA should be given effect. Accordingly, the Panel Chair will sign the Notice of Withdrawal in the form set out at Annex C to the “Disposal of Cases by Consent” Practice Note.

The Panel granted the application for voluntary removal from the HCPC Register.

No notes available

History of Hearings for Sally Carson