Emma King

 

 

1. Ms Sampson, on behalf of the HCPC applied for parts of the hearing to take place in private when dealing with the health and private life of the Registrant, pursuant to Rule (10)(1) (a) of the Conduct and Competence (Procedure) Rules 2003.

 

2. Mr Shadenbury, on behalf of the Registrant, endorsed the application. 

 

3. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. It had regard to the guidance set out in the HCPTS Practice Note on “Conducting hearings in private”. The Panel was satisfied that, it was appropriate for the health and intimate details of the Registrant’s family life to be in private heard in private, to protect the Registrant’s private life. 

 

 

4. The Registrant was employed by Newcastle City Council (the Council) within the Adult Social Care and Integrated Services Directorate as an Occupational Therapist between 25 June 2023 and 17 July 2023.

 

5. The Registrant first saw Service User A in a professional capacity in around April 2018. The Registrant assessed Service User A in relation to adaptations for his bathroom and kitchen to promote independent living. As part of the assessment, conducted on 12 April 2018, the Registrant recorded that Service User A had a number of physical and mental health conditions, including severe depression, and PTSD.

 

6. It was alleged that shortly after the work in relation to Service User A’s bathroom was completed, around January 2019, the Registrant bought books for Service User A and, on 16 February 2019, attended his home and gave them to him. On that same occasion it was alleged that they engaged in sexual intercourse, following which they had a relationship, which, apart from a break in 2020 during the COVID pandemic and subsequent lockdown restrictions, continued until the Registrant ended the relationship in early 2023.

 

7. It was alleged that the Registrant’s actions in respect of the personal relationship with Service User A breached professional boundaries and were sexually motivated. It is further alleged that Service User A was vulnerable and that the Registrant knew that he was.

 

8. At a substantive hearing which took place on 10-14 February 2025, the Panel found all facts proved. The Panel found the facts proved constituted misconduct, and that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired on both the personal and public components, in order to protect the public and uphold the wider public interest. The Panel imposed a Suspension Order for a period of 12 months. 

 

9. Today’s hearing is the first review of the 12-month Suspension Order. 

 

 

10. Ms Sampson addressed the Panel on the background of the case, and told the Panel that the HCPC’s position was that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remained impaired on both the personal and public components, but reserved her position regarding sanction, wishing to the hear the Registrant’s evidence first. Ms Sampson submitted that the Registrant’s written reflective statement, while detailed and demonstrating engagement, development of insight and an acceptance of wrongdoing and the impact on Service User A and his family, did not reflect on the previous panel’s concerns regarding the ongoing nature of professional boundaries after the discharge of a service user, and focussed upon the impact on the Registrant herself. 

 

11. Ms Sampson submitted that there was no reflection provided by the Registrant on the professional boundaries course taken, nor any certification of completion. Therefore, she submitted, the extent of her learning was unclear. Further, there was no evidence of wider 

structured CPD having been undertaken. 

 

12. Ms Sampson submitted that a continuing risk of repetition existed if the Registrant returned to practice without supervision. 

 

13. Following the Registrant’s evidence, Ms Sampson submitted that the Registrant gave a detailed, thoughtful and candid reflection. However, when Panel questions probed about the impact upon Service User A, the Registrant’s focus shifted to herself and her family. The Registrant’s insight was still developing, and the risk of repetition remained. Ms Sampson submitted that this was not a case where Suspension was required, the Registrant had engaged and developed insight and expressed a willingness to work under supervision. Conditions of practice would be appropriate pursuant to which the Registrant could work under supervision, engage in further professional boundaries training, with reflective work focussed on the power imbalance of the relationship with service users, and regular review of her progress with a reporting requirement to the HCPC. This would be sufficient to protect the public and address the wider public interest. 

 

14. Mr Shadenbury submitted that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is not impaired. Mr Shadenbury submitted that the Registrant had built upon the insight demonstrated in her reflective statement, and that she had gained the necessary understanding of professional boundaries. She had made significant progress over the last year, and dealt with the contributory factors which had existed at the time of the misconduct. She had undergone counselling, accepted her wrongdoing, and had considered the impact on Service User A in her reflective statement and acknowledged it in her evidence. The Registrant had kept her knowledge and skills up to date, reading professional articles and journals, and joined the Royal College of Occupational Therapists (RCOT) professional network, and undertaken professional boundaries training. 

 

15. Mr Shadenbury submitted that the Registrant had made clear that she was aware of red flags which may become apparent in the future in similar circumstances and had indicated that she knew how to preserve professional boundaries, by removing herself from the situation and seeking supervision. Mr Shadenbury submitted that the Registrant’s view that she would not wish to return to OT at this time, was indicative of her insight, as was her intention to seek supervision in practice in the future, which was her intention regardless of the 

 

 

16. Mr Shadenbury submitted that if impairment was found, the current Suspension Order should be replaced by a conditions of practice order, and that  he did not take issue with the conditions suggested by the HCPC, although he reminded the Panel that the concerns revolved not around clinical practice but rather professional boundaries, regarding which regular meetings with a line manager could facilitate discussion and supervision. 

 

The Registrant’s evidence at today’s hearing 

 

17. The Registrant told the Panel that she had been working as a comfort specialist in a furniture shop carrying out seating and bedding assessments with customers. She had been using some core skills of an OT looking at functional needs and comfort and support such as with regard to postural care, and giving advice. She had been reading professional journal articles, and had joined a professional network with other OT professionals, and would like to re-enter the profession in the future. 

 

18. The Registrant told the Panel about the professional boundaries course which was a 1-day online course. She told the Panel that it was an insightful and detailed course.

 

19. The Registrant told the Panel that she understood her wrongdoing and took full accountability, and that she would never do something like that again. She accepted that there had been a massive power imbalance between her and Service User A, and understood that professional boundaries did not end once a service user had been discharged. She would continue lifelong learning around the subject of professional boundaries and if faced with similar circumstances, she would recognise red flags and would make sure boundaries were clear. If there were triggering issues, she would seek out her supervisor for support and asked to be transferred away from that service user. She would not seek to return to the profession straight away, she would want to prepare further and felt that she had lost confidence in herself. She wished to develop herself as a safe practitioner and in doing so would seek support. 

 

20. Under cross-examination the Registrant stated that she felt that Service User A had an undiagnosed personality disorder and that he could be very manipulative.

 

21. When the Registrant was asked by the Panel about what she had learnt from the professional boundaries course, she was able to answer in a general way but said that she would need to check her notes, as the course was undertaken in December 2025. 

 

22. The Registrant was questioned by the Panel about the impact of her behaviour upon Service User A. The Registrant stated that the love and support which Service User A received from her outweighed any negative impact, and that after the relationship ended, he wrote her a letter saying he had the best times of his life when they were together and that the friendship and love they had, outweighed any negative impact. The Registrant stated that he had manipulated her in the relationship and had told her that if she ended the relationship, he might kill himself and that she felt very trapped. 

 

23. The Registrant was asked in further Panel questions about whether she agreed with Service User A that the love she gave him outweighed any negative impact. Her answer was that it did not, because ultimately it had torn her life and her family’s life apart. When asked further about the impact on Service User A, the Registrant stated that it was that he thought that he was in a relationship which would last forever and that he would get support from her indefinitely. When it came to an end, he felt cheated and taken advantage of and he wanted revenge. He wrote an anonymous letter to the Registrant’s husband stating that they had had an affair and he tore her life apart. When asked again about the impact on Service User A, the Registrant stated that he fell in love with her, and when it came to an end, he was devastated and said he could not live without her. When the Registrant was asked if the fact that she was his OT affected his devastation, the Registrant replied it would have done.

 

 

24. The Panel had before it the HCPC bundle, and the Registrant’s bundle, which included a written reflective statement, two-character testimonials, a letter from the Registrant’s treating health professional dated 3 February 2026, and details of a one-day professional boundaries course undertaken by the Registrant. 

 

25. In undertaking this review, the Panel took into account the documentary evidence, the submissions from both parties, and the Registrant’s oral evidence.

 

26. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor as to the proper approach it should adopt. The Panel was aware that its purpose today was to conduct a comprehensive review of the Registrant’s fitness to return to unrestricted practice and considered the HCPTS Practice Notes entitled “Review of Article 30 Sanction Orders”, and “Fitness to Practise Impairment”. Only if Impairment remained, would the panel then go on to consider what sanction, if any to impose.

 

27. The Panel first considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise was currently impaired. 

 

28. The Panel had significant concerns about the Registrant’s level of insight. While the Panel considered that her written reflective statement and parts of her oral evidence contained a degree of insight and reflection, the Panel was concerned that this was undermined by a significant part of her oral evidence under cross-examination and Panel questioning. The Registrant referred to Service User A as manipulative, and alleged that he appeared to have a personality disorder. She focussed on his feelings of love for her, as well as the impact of the relationship upon her and her family. Despite being pressed by Panel questioning about the impact of her misconduct on Service User A, she was unable to articulate the impact of her breach of professional boundaries on him in a professionally reflective and considered manner, and primarily referred to his feelings of devastation that the relationship had ended, as well as the harmful effect on her and her family.

 

29. While there was a section on the impact on Service User A in her written reflective statement, her answers to Panel questions on this point, in the Panel’s view, undermined the degree of insight shown in her written document and caused the Panel great concern.  

 

30. In addition, the Registrant was asked how she would prevent a breach of professional boundaries in similar circumstances in the future, if she found, for example, that she had a connection to a service user through a shared experience or background, as she stated she had felt with Service User A. The Panel was concerned about the Registrant’s answers. The Registrant focussed on “red flags” which she would be aware of as exhibited by a service user, but there was little reference to,  and no meaningful understanding demonstrated of, the red flags which may come from within the Registrant, what they may be, and why they may be exhibited, as part of her reflection. 

 

31. As such, the Panel formed the view that the Registrant’s oral evidence demonstrated limited insight. 

 

32. On the basis of the Registrant’s oral evidence and looking at the question of insight as compared to the insight which the previous panel identified, today’s Panel took the view that her insight had, on the face of it, lessened. 

 

33. The Panel was also concerned that the Registrant was unable to answer questions about what she had learned in the professional boundaries course she had attended. Her answers were generic, and she stated that she could not give any real detail as the course was some time ago, and she would need to look at her notes. The Panel noted the evidence that the course was undertaken in December 2025, and it appeared to the Panel that this was recently undertaken but that she had not embedded her learning sufficiently. 

 

34. On the basis of the evidence before it, the Panel decided that the Registrant had shown insufficient insight and remediation. As a result, the Panel decided that there was a real risk of repetition of the misconduct. As such, the Panel considered that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remained impaired on the personal component.

 

35. Due to the ongoing risk of repetition and the risk to service users, the Panel found that the need to uphold standards and confidence in the profession would be undermined if no finding of impairment were made. Accordingly, the Panel found that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired on the public component.

 

 

36. The Panel approached the question of sanction from the least restrictive upwards. It was aware that the purpose of sanction is to protect the public and uphold the public interest, and not to punish. It exercised the principle of proportionality, being mindful that the least restrictive sanction necessary and sufficient to address the concerns and risks, and no more, should be imposed.  The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and took into account the Sanctions Guidance. 

 

37. The Panel first considered whether to take no action. It concluded that this would be wholly inappropriate and would provide no restriction on the Registrant’s practice, which would be needed to protect the public, nor would it be sufficient to address the public interest concerns in the case. A Caution Order would be insufficient for the same reasons, bearing in mind the level of seriousness of the misconduct and the real risk of repetition. 

 

38. The Panel next considered conditions of practice. However, this was not a case where the misconduct related to clinical concerns, which may be addressed by verifiable conditions targeting deficits in professional performance. Rather, this case involved a matter of attitude in respect of the breach of professional boundaries, and the Panel could not devise conditions, such as those relating to supervision in the work environment, which would be sufficient to safeguard against the risks.  Breaches of professional boundaries may occur outside of work, and the Panel was not satisfied that the Registrant had a sufficient level of insight in the case so that she may be left with the responsibility to raise the issue of potential or actual professional boundary breaches with her supervisor whenever they may occur in her practice as an autonomous practitioner. The Panel therefore did not consider that it could formulate workable conditions. Further, this was a serious case, and as a result of the limited insight and real risk of repetition, any conditions would  be insufficient to manage the risk. As such no conditions could be formulated to protect the public and be sufficient to uphold the public interest. 

 

39. The Panel next considered Suspension and decided that in light of the  limited insight shown thus far and the real risk of repetition, and as well as the seriousness of the misconduct, balanced against the Registrant’s personal circumstances over the past 12 months which had prevented her focussing more in depth on remediation, a further period of Suspension would be appropriate. The Panel was satisfied that no lesser sanction than Suspension would be sufficient to safeguard against the risks in this case. In addition, a period of Suspension would allow the Registrant time to complete her engagement with the regulatory process and demonstrate her insight into, and remediation of, the misconduct found proved.  

 

40. The Panel determined that a period of 12 months was proportionate and necessary to reflect the seriousness of the misconduct and mark it for the purposes of addressing the public interest in this case, as well as affording public protection. It would also allow the Registrant time to prepare any evidence upon which she seeks to rely.  

 

41. The Panel did consider a Striking Off order, taking into account the unresolved issues regarding insight and risk that remains. However, it took into account the Registrant’s engagement with the regulatory process, and her evidence about significant life events in the past 12 months which had prevented her from properly focusing on her professional development.  The Panel therefore decided that a Striking Off Order would be disproportionate at this time. 

 

42. In coming to its decision, the Panel took into account the impact this decision will have on the Registrant’s right to practise as well as the potential financial and reputational impact, but decided that the need to protect the public and uphold the public interest outweighed her interests in this respect. 

 

43. The Panel therefore decided to impose a 12-month period of Suspension which will take effect on the expiry of the current order, pursuant to Article 30(1) of the Health Professions Order 2001.

 

44. The Panel also decided that a future reviewing panel may be greatly assisted if the Registrant:

 

a. Attends the next review;

b. provides the following information in advance of the review hearing:

 

i. detailed written reflective piece focusing on her insight into, and reflection on, the impact of her misconduct upon the public and service users generally and Service User A specifically;

ii. evidence of professional boundaries training undertaken and reflections on what she has learnt from that training and how she will embed that learning into her practice.