David Lee

Preliminary Matters

Proceeding partially in private

1. Ms Khorassani for the HCPC, supported by the Registrant, submitted that matters that relate to the health of the Registrant and to his private life should remain confidential, but that otherwise this is a public hearing. Having heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and for the reasons advanced by Ms Khorassani, the Panel determined that those matters that relate to the health of the Registrant or to his private life, should remain private, but that otherwise this is a public hearing. In the course of the hearing, and having received further advice from the Legal Assessor, the Panel determined that the entirety of the statement of the Registrant and the entirety of the evidence from RW, the witness called by the Registrant, should be treated as having been received in private. The determination of the Panel will be redacted accordingly.

Background as set out in the determination of the Original Panel

2. The background, as set out in the determination of the Original Panel, was expressed in the terms set out below:

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

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

3. Concerns were raised with the HCPC by colleagues and the Registrant’s ex-wife, 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.

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

5. 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. 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 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.

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

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.  

Background continued

10. At the [Original] hearing between 30 June 2025 and 04 July 2025, the Panel was provided by the HCPC with a hearing bundle which including all the evidence at the substantive hearing before the previous panel. 

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

12. 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. 

13. 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.

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

15. 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.

16. The Panel adopted the submission of Mr Micklewright [Counsel, on behalf of the HCPC] that it should determine the Particulars of Allegation in chronological order, starting with Particular 1 c), followed by Particulars 1 b) and 1 a).

17. 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.

3. Having made the decisions as to the facts that are set out above, the Original Panel concluded that the Registrant’s behaviour constituted misconduct; that his fitness to practise was thereby impaired and it imposed a Suspension Order for a period of 12 months.

The Original Panel’s decision in respect misconduct 

4. In its determination the Original Panel concluded that each of the Particulars of the Allegation that had been found proved, constituted misconduct and that such misconduct was extremely serious.

The Original Panel’s decision in respect of impairment

5. The Original Panel determined that by reason of his misconduct the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired in relation to the public component, but not in relation to the personal component. The Original Panel stated its reasons in the following terms:

1. [Redacted]

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. The Panel took into account the submissions on behalf of the HCPC and the Registrant, respectively. The Panel had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on “Fitness to Practise Impairment” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

5. 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.

6. 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.  

7. 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.

8. 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.

The Sanction imposed by the Original Panel on 4 July 2025

6. The Original Panel imposed a Suspension Order for a period of 12 months. The Original Panel stated its reasons in the following terms:

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

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

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

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

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

8. The Panel considered the indicators 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.

9. 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.

10. With regard to the length of the Suspension Order, the Panel noted that the Registrant had already been subject to the equivalent of 8 1⁄2 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.

Guidance as to what might assist a reviewing panel

7. In its determination the Original Panel gave guidance as to what might assist a future reviewing panel. That guidance was set out in the following terms:

1. 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.

The first review hearing conducted by the Panel on 19 June 2026

8. Ms Khorassani in her oral submissions on behalf of the HCPC, stated that the Registrant was compliant with all the recommendations made by the Original Panel as to what might assist a subsequent reviewing panel. Subject to that, the HCPC’s position at this review hearing was one of neutrality. The HCPC was not making any submissions as to the Registrant’s current impairment or as to the appropriate sanction, should the Panel determine that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was currently impaired. Ms Khorassani did however: 

a) Remind the Panel of the purpose and nature of a Review hearing, drawing to the attention of the Panel the relevant Practice Notice.

b) Confirm that the Registrant has been in continuing contact with the HCPC since the Original Hearing. 

c) Refer the Panel to the documents that had been produced by the Registrant.

d) Emphasise that there was a persuasive burden on the Registrant to show that he had successfully addressed the deficiencies found established by the Original Panel and that he was now no longer impaired.

e) Noted that the Original Panel had determined that the Registrant’s impairment was on the public and not the personal component.

f) Reminded the Panel of the options that were available to the Panel, in the event that the Panel determined that the Registrant was still impaired. 

g) Drew to the attention of the Panel the relevant provisions in the HCPC’s Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics.  

h) Reminded the Panel of the judicial guidance as to impairment given in the case of Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence v Nursing and Midwifery Council and Grant [2011] EWHC 927 Admin).

Submissions made by the Registrant

9. [Redacted]

Evidence of RW 

10. [Redacted]

The decision of the Panel made on 19 June 2026

11. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. It has taken into account the submissions of Ms Khorassani and those of the Registrant. The Panel has read and considered all the documents placed before it; in particular all the documents submitted by the Registrant. It paid very careful attention to the evidence of RW. It has also taken into account the determination of the Original Panel. The Panel has also read and applied the Practice Note entitled “Review of Article 30 Sanction Orders” published by the HCPTS in August 2025. It has noted in particular that there is in practical terms a persuasive burden on the Registrant to demonstrate at the review that he has fully acknowledged and addressed the deficiencies which led to the original decision of impairment and that as a consequence of the action taken, he is now capable of safe and effective practice.

12. The Panel was aware that the Original Panel had determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was not impaired by reason of the “personal component”. The Original Panel had determined that the Registrant’s impairment was by reason of the “public component” only.

13. The Panel is aware that it has all the powers that are set out in Article 30 [1] of the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001 [The Order] and which are set out in the email sent to the Registrant giving notice of this hearing.

14. The Panel is aware that the process under Article 30 [1] of the Order is one of review and not one of appeal and that its function is to determine whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired: if so, whether the Suspension Order under review remains appropriate and proportionate or should be varied or replaced by some other order.

Decision of the Panel on Impairment 

15. Having noted that the Original Panel’s decision was that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired by reason of the public component only, the Panel confined itself to that matter. The Panel has concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is no longer impaired by reason of the public component. The Panel determined that the Registrant had complied with all the recommendations of the Original Panel.  The Panel was impressed by the very full and perceptive evidence, both written and oral of RW. The Panel was also impressed and reassured by the honest and candid manner in which the Registrant himself had addressed the Panel.

16. In the opinion of the Panel the Registrant has developed very full insight. He understands the impact that his conduct had on the females concerned, also on the reputation of the profession. The Panel was impressed by the support mechanisms that the Registrant had developed. Also, by the fact that for the last 10 years he has been practising in the UAE as a Psychologist without any regulatory concerns. 

17. The Panel concluded that there was no significant risk of a repetition of the previous conduct. In all the circumstances the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had discharged the persuasive burden that rested on him; in particular that he has fully acknowledged the deficiencies that led to the original findings and has addressed that impairment in a sufficient and appropriate manner. In the opinion of the Panel a finding of present impairment on the “public component” ground was no longer required. A finding of impairment was no longer necessary on any of the grounds that are set out in paragraph 51 of the determination of the Original Panel.

18. Though not required to determine the issue, the Panel was also satisfied that Registrant’s fitness to practise is not impaired by reason of the “personal component”. The Panel agrees with the determination of the Original Panel which had determined, in paragraph 49 of its determination, that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was not impaired by reference to the “personal component”.

19. For all the reasons set out above the Panel has determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is no longer impaired and that the present Suspension Order will cease to be in effect on 1 August 2026 when it expires.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to revoke the Suspension Order on the registration of Dr David Lee on the expiry date, namely 01 August 2026.

No notes available

History of Hearings for David Lee