December 2025: ZM, Reference No 00924687, Registrant ID 384433
December 2025: Zak Mehta, Reference No 00924687 , Registrant ID 384433
笔颁笔摆鈥
Allegation 1
1.1 In a counselling session on 15 November Year 1 the Member behaved in an inappropriate and/or sexually motivated manner towards the Complainant including [鈥 the Complainant, [鈥 and touching [鈥.
1.2 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with the following paragraphs of the 麻豆原创 Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018:
34. We will not have sexual relationships with or behave sexually towards our clients, supervisees or trainees
35. We will not exploit or abuse our clients in any way: financially, emotionally, physically, sexually or spiritually
48. We will avoid any actions that will bring our profession into disrepute.
Allegation 1.1 amounts to professional misconduct as defined in the Professional Conduct Procedure.
Allegation 2
2.1 In the meeting with the Complainant following the session on 15 November Year 1 the Member sought to exploit the Complainant sexually and emotionally as evidenced by, but not limited to, the following comments (or words to that effect) and actions:
i. 鈥淚 knew from when I saw you that you were beautiful and stunning鈥�
ii. 鈥淵ou look incredibly cute鈥�
iii. 鈥淚 am attracted to you鈥�. I love everything about you鈥�
iv. Told her how he felt when his hands were touching her [鈥 in the session the day before
v. Acknowledged that he should have shown more restraint the previous day
vi. Hugged the Complainant and put his arms round her during the session.
2.2 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with the following paragraphs of the 麻豆原创 Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018:
34. We will not have sexual relationships with or behave sexually towards our clients, supervisees or trainees.
35. We will not exploit or abuse our clients in any way: financially, emotionally, physically, sexually or spiritually.
48. We will avoid any actions that will bring our profession into disrepute.
Allegation 2.1 (i)- (vi) amounts to professional misconduct as defined in the Professional Conduct Procedure
Allegation 3
3.1. The Member made a number of undated postings on social media that were unprofessional and breached client confidentiality in that he:
a. messaged the Complainant鈥檚 [鈥 through the profile [鈥 disclosing personal information from the Complainant鈥檚 counselling sessions and making offensive comments about the Complainant.
b. Responded to a review from the Complainant鈥檚 [鈥 on [鈥.com on the Member鈥檚 counselling website disclosing personal information about the Complainant and her counselling sessions including 鈥測our [鈥 is very [鈥 and [鈥 鈥�, that [鈥 had 鈥淸鈥 lies鈥�, and 鈥淸鈥 needs more than counselling, my advice would be [鈥鈥�
3.2. The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with the following paragraphs of the 麻豆原创 Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018:
21. We will respect our clients鈥� privacy and dignity.
43. We will maintain high standards of honesty and probity in all aspects of our work.
48. We will avoid any actions that will bring our profession into disrepute.
55. We will protect the confidentiality and privacy of clients by:
a. actively protecting information about clients from unauthorised access or disclosure.
f. ensuring that disclosure of personally identifiable information about clients is authorised by client consent or that there is a legally and ethically recognised justification.
Allegation 3.1 (a) and(b) amounts to professional misconduct as defined in the Professional Conduct Procedure
Allegation 4
4.1. The Member made unauthorised recordings of the Complainant鈥檚 counselling sessions, thereby breaching the client鈥檚 privacy and trust.
4.2. The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with the following paragraphs of the 麻豆原创 Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018:
31. We will give careful consideration to how we reach agreement with clients and will contract with them about the terms on which our services will be provided. Attention will be given to:
c. stating clearly how a client鈥檚 confidentiality and privacy will be protected and any circumstances in which confidential or private information will be communicated to others.
43. We will maintain high standards of honesty and probity in all aspects of our work.
Allegation 4.1 amounts to professional misconduct as defined in the Professional Conduct Procedure.
笔颁笔摆鈥
Allegation 1
1.1 In Year 3 the Member made two postings on the review page of his company鈥檚 webpage.
1.2 In these postings the Member behaved unprofessionally and breached the Complainant鈥檚 confidentiality by disclosing, on a public site, personal details from the Complainant鈥檚 [鈥 counselling sessions and making inappropriate and unprofessional comments about the Complainant鈥檚 [鈥 including:
鈥淚 feel sorry for you [鈥 as you [鈥 this [鈥 , you would rather believe [鈥 lies than face the truth that in your heart鈥�..鈥�.
鈥� I totally understand that you would believe your [鈥 and [鈥 claims , I guess it鈥檚 easier to face rather than the lies [鈥 , in fact [鈥 up until this very day, you know [鈥 but rather than deal with that, [鈥 makes up these [鈥 lies to make [鈥 a [鈥 and distract you from what is going on 鈥︹��
1.3 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with the following paragraphs of the 麻豆原创 Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018:
21. We will respect our clients鈥� privacy and dignity
33. We will establish and maintain appropriate professional and personal boundaries in our relationships with clients by ensuring that:
c. reasonable care is taken to separate and maintain a distinction between our personal and professional presence on social media where this could result in harmful dual relationships with clients
48. We will avoid any actions that will bring our profession into disrepute.
55. We will protect the confidentiality and privacy of clients by:
a. actively protecting information about clients from unauthorised access or disclosure
f. ensuring that disclosure of personally identifiable information about clients is authorised by client consent or that there is a legally and ethically recognised justification.
Allegations 1.1 and 1.2 amount to professional misconduct as defined in the Professional Conduct Procedure.
Allegation 2
2.1 In a number of undated electronic messages sent by the Member to the Complainant on social media, the Member behaved unprofessionally and/or breached client confidentiality in that he:
a. disclosed details of the counselling sessions between the Complainant鈥檚 [鈥 and the Member.
b. disclosed personal identifiable details of the Complainant鈥檚 [鈥 such as her name.
c. made inappropriate, unprofessional and personal comments about the Complainant鈥檚 [鈥 including that [鈥 鈥渋s [鈥鈥�, 鈥渋s beyond [鈥 鈥� 鈥渋s very [鈥.鈥�
d. stated that he had made recordings of the counselling sessions, which the complainant says were made without authorisation.
e. used an account in the name of [鈥 to send the messages to the Complainant.
2.2 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with the following paragraphs of the 麻豆原创 Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018:
21. We will respect our clients鈥� privacy and dignity.
48. We will avoid any actions that will bring our profession into disrepute.
55. We will protect the confidentiality and privacy of clients by:
a. actively protecting information about clients from unauthorised access or disclosure.
f. ensuring that disclosure of personally identifiable information about clients is authorised by client consent or that there is a legally and ethically recognised justification.
Allegations 2.1. (a)-(e) amount to professional misconduct as defined in the Professional Conduct Procedure.
Preliminary issues
The Hearing Panel noted that the matters of 笔颁笔摆鈥 and 笔颁笔摆鈥 were joined together by a Professional Conduct Panel on 6 March Year 4 and are being heard together as 笔颁笔摆鈥.
It noted also that on 14 July Year 4 a Panel considered an application by 麻豆原创 under paragraph 5.9 of the PCP to proceed with hearing in the absence of the Member. The
5.9 Panel decided that it was fair and appropriate to proceed in the Member鈥檚 absence.
Amendment of allegations
At the outset of the hearing the Case Presenter on behalf of 麻豆原创 proposed a number of amendments to the allegations as follows:
Firstly, she stated that the final sentence in Allegation 2 in 笔颁笔摆鈥 states that 鈥淎llegation 2.1 (i)-(ix) amounts to professional misconduct鈥︹��, although Allegation
2.1 includes only sections (i) to (vi).
Secondly, the Case Presenter stated that the words stated in Allegation 2.1 (i) of 笔颁笔摆鈥 did not appear to be an exact record of the words used in the transcript.
Thirdly, she stated that all allegations refer to potential breaches of the 鈥淓thical Framework for Counselling & Psychotherapy 2018鈥� although the relevant Ethical Framework is titled 鈥淓thical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018鈥�.
Finally the Case Presenter invited the Panel to insert the word 鈥渙r鈥� in Allegation
2.1 of 笔颁笔摆鈥, to more accurately reflect the nature of the misconduct in the allegation.
The Panel bore in mind that Paragraph 4.12 of the Professional Conduct Procedure states:
鈥淎t any stage before making its findings of fact, and having considered any representations by the parties as to the appropriateness of doing so, the Panel may permit or direct the amendment of the allegations.鈥�
The Panel bore in mind that the Member was not in attendance and could not make representations on the proposed amendments. However, it considered that the proposed amendments were administrative and that making the amendments
in the Member鈥檚 absence did not cause any unfairness. The Panel decided therefore that the amendments should be made for reasons of accuracy.
Allegation 2 in 笔颁笔摆鈥 was amended to read 鈥淎llegation 2.1 (i) 鈥� (vi) amounts to professional misconduct鈥�..鈥�.
Allegation 2.1 in 笔颁笔摆鈥 was amended to include the words 鈥�(or words to that effect)鈥�.
All references in the allegations to the 鈥淓thical Framework for Counselling & Psychotherapy 2018鈥� were amended to read 鈥淓thical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018鈥�.
Allegation 2.1 in 笔颁笔摆鈥 was amended to read 鈥渁nd/or鈥�.
Admissions
The Member was not in attendance and has made no formal admissions.
Evidence before the Panel
In coming to its decision the Panel carefully considered the following:
鈥� The Association鈥檚 bundle of evidence and exhibits.
鈥� The written and oral evidence of the Complainants.
鈥� The written evidence of the Member.
鈥� The 麻豆原创 professional Conduct Procedure 2018.
鈥� The Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018
鈥� Recording and transcript of a session between the Member and the first Complainant.
Summary of Evidence
The Complainants have complained about Zak Mehta, an individual 麻豆原创 Member whom they saw for couples counselling and individual sessions from July to November Year 1.
Witness (Complainant 1)
The Witness gave evidence under affirmation. She confirmed the contents of her Witness Statement dated 28 January Year 4 and exhibits [鈥1 to [鈥6. She stated that she and her [鈥 were seeking couples counselling and found the Member鈥檚 details online. They approached him due to his location and the fact that he was a 麻豆原创 member. The first session in July Year 1 was a joint session, but the Member advised that he also wanted to see the parties separately to that he could understand more about them as individuals. A number of joint and individual sessions took place.
On 14 November Year 1, the Witness said that she was having a bad day and texted the Member asking for help. He agreed to see her the following day and initially suggested that he would pick her up from work, although he subsequently asked her to come to his premises. She said that the session began with her talking about how she was feeling and the things that were getting her down. She said that the Member then told her that she needed to relax and asked her to sit on the carpet. She said that she thought this was strange but did as he asked as she thought that he was going to engage in meditation with her. She said that she was aware that he was using his mobile phone. He then left the room and returned with [鈥 and told her that he was trained as a masseur. The Witness said that he asked her to [鈥 . He then sat down behind her with his [鈥 around her and started to [鈥 her shoulders. She said that the Member then started to put his hand [鈥 . She told the Panel that she said 鈥淣o鈥�, but he continued to [鈥. [鈥 she said 鈥淣o鈥� again. [鈥.
[鈥. She subsequently met with the Member the following day to discuss what had happened; she recorded that meeting and confirmed that this is the recording that she has produced to 麻豆原创.
The Witness stated that she subsequently told her partner what had happened [鈥. [鈥 then posted a review on the Member鈥檚 review page saying that the Member should not be trusted. The Member sent a number of messages online in response, both publicly on his company鈥檚 review page, and by direct message on social media. Messages were sent in his own name and from a Facebook account in the name of [鈥; they referred to counselling sessions with the Witness and made a number of allegations against her. He also said in messages that he had recordings of sessions between himself and the Witness.
The Witness said that after the incident in the session she felt distraught, confused and traumatised.
Witness (Complainant 2)
The second Witness gave evidence under affirmation. He confirmed the contents of his Witness Statement of 28 January Year 4 and exhibits [鈥1 to [鈥4.
The Witness said that he and his partner [鈥 contacted the Member to seek counselling [鈥 . They had a series of couples sessions with him and he also suggested individual sessions. The Witness said that on 14 November Year 1, he received a telephone call from his partner who was feeling stressed and overwhelmed. He suggested that she should contact the Member which she did. [鈥.
The Witness said that on 17 November, his partner spoke to him by telephone [鈥 and told him what had happened at the session on 15 November. [鈥.
The Witness said that he then left a review on [鈥.com [鈥. He subsequently received a number of messages on social media platforms both from the Member鈥檚 own account and from an account in the name of [鈥. Those messages made a number of allegations against his partner, disclosed details of her therapeutic sessions and stated that the Member had recordings of sessions that he could share with the Witness.
Decision and Reasons for Findings
On balance, having fully considered the above, the Panel made the following findings:
笔颁笔摆鈥
Allegation 1
Allegation 1.1 鈥� PROVED
The Panel took into account the initial complaint made by Complainant 1 to 麻豆原创, her Witness Statement dated 28 January Year 4 and her oral evidence to the Panel. It noted that in her original complaint and her Witness Statement, Complainant 1 stated that in the session on 15 November, the Member [鈥, [鈥 and touched her [鈥. In her oral evidence, she gave an account of the incident, including how the Member had [鈥 her and touched her [鈥, [鈥. Although Complainant 1 did not specifically refer in her oral evidence to the Member [鈥, the Panel found that her account of the incident had been substantially consistent throughout.
The Panel noted also that although the Member did not provide details of the incident, he admitted in his response that the incident had occurred in 鈥渁 moment of lust鈥� which he accepted was 鈥渨rong, unethical and unprofessional鈥�. The Panel found therefore that the incident had taken place as alleged and it found the Member鈥檚 conduct in this respect to be unprofessional. It also noted the Member鈥檚 acknowledgement that he was 鈥渁cting on lust鈥� and found therefore that his conduct was sexually motivated, in that it was carried out for the pursuit of sexual [鈥. The Panel therefore found this allegation proved on the balance of probabilities.
Allegation 1.2 鈥� PROVED
The Panel applied these findings to paragraphs 34, 35 and 48 of 鈥楪ood Practice鈥� in the 麻豆原创 Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018.
The Panel found that the Member had behaved sexually towards his client at a time when she was feeling overwhelmed and had asked him for help. The Panel found that he had taken advantage of her vulnerability for his own benefit and his conduct therefore breached both Paragraphs 34 and 35 of the Ethical Framework. The Panel also found that such behaviour would bring the profession into disrepute, and his conduct was in breach of Paragraph 48 of the Ethical Framework.
The Panel therefore found that the Member has breached Paragraphs 34, 35 and 48 of the Ethical Framework.
Allegation 2
Allegation 2.1 - PROVED
Having listened to the recording and read the transcript of the meeting between the Member and Complainant 1 after the session of 15 November, the Panel found that the Member had sought to exploit the client both sexually and emotionally. In particular, it noted that the Member told the client 鈥淵ou鈥檙e [鈥, and I love all of that鈥� and 鈥淢y motive was to just kind of explore what I was feeling鈥� which demonstrated that he was taking advantage of her vulnerability for his own benefit.
In relation to the specific allegations, the Panel found from the recording and the transcript that the Member had made the comments (or words to the effect) or acted as alleged in each of Allegation 2 (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v) and (vi). Although the Panel acknowledged that it was not possible to establish conclusively from the recording whether a hug had taken place, it noted from the transcript that the Member had asked the client 鈥淐an I have a hug before you go?鈥� and the client did not demur.
The Panel therefore found this allegation proved in its entirety on the balance of probabilities.
Allegation 2.2 鈥� PROVED
The Panel applied these findings to paragraphs 34, 35 and 48 of 鈥楪ood Practice鈥� in the 麻豆原创 Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018.
The Panel found that the Member had acted sexually towards his client in the language and tone used at the meeting and that he had taken advantage of her vulnerability for his own benefit. It concluded therefore that the Member had exploited the client emotionally and sexually. It therefore found that the Member had acted in breach of Paragraphs 34 and 35 of the Ethical Framework. The Panel further found that such behaviour would bring the profession into disrepute, and his conduct was in breach of Paragraph 48 of the Ethical Framework.
The Panel therefore found that the Member has breached Paragraphs 34, 35 and 48 of the Ethical Framework.
Allegation 3
Allegation 3.1 - PROVED
The Panel had before it a number of messages from the Member which were either posted online or sent to Complainant 1鈥檚 partner. It had no reason to believe that the messages were not genuine. Indeed the Member in his response to 麻豆原创 stated:
鈥淭he only reason I mentioned things online, is because I was [鈥, [鈥 these fabrications and lies, I was stressed, anxious and distressed [鈥 for something I did not do. [鈥 was getting [鈥 contact all my clients, via the reviews they left, and proceed to tell them I was some [鈥 that cannot be trusted, so forgive me if I didn鈥檛 take into consideration this [鈥 and [鈥 persons confidentiality into account.鈥�
a. The Panel found that the Member had messaged Complainant 2 through the profile of 鈥淸鈥鈥� and had disclosed personal information from Complainant 1鈥檚 counselling sessions and made offensive comments about her. The Panel found that these messages were unprofessional and breached client confidentiality.
b. The Panel found that the Member had responded to a review from Complainant 2 on [鈥.com, disclosing personal information about Complainant 1 and her counselling sessions publicly and including the comments alleged. The Panel found that these messages were unprofessional and breached client confidentiality.
The Panel therefore found this allegation proved on the balance of probabilities.
Allegation 3.2 鈥� PROVED
The Panel applied these findings to paragraphs 21, 43, 48 and 55a and f of 鈥楪ood Practice鈥� in the 麻豆原创 Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018.
The Panel found that the Member had disclosed details of Complainant 1 and her counselling sessions both publicly online and to her partner in electronic messages in circumstances where no consent had been given and there was no legal or ethical justification for that disclosure. It found therefore that his conduct breached Paragraphs 21 and 55 a and f of the Ethical Framework.
The Panel concluded that the deliberate and unjustified disclosure of personal and private information amounted to a lack of probity and the Member had therefore breached Paragraph 43 of the Ethical Framework. It found also that such conduct would bring the profession into disrepute and is in breach of Paragraph 48 of the Ethical Framework.
The Panel therefore found that the Member has breached Paragraphs 21, 43, 48, 55 a and f of the Ethical Framework.
Allegation 4
Allegation 4.1 鈥� PROVED
The Panel acknowledged that neither it nor the Complainants had been provided with copies of any recordings, or transcripts of recordings, which were alleged to have been made by the Member. However, it noted that in messages sent to Complainant 2 by the Member, from an account in the name of [鈥, he states:
鈥淵ou see I have my own recording [鈥. [鈥. He further states:
鈥淚f ever you want to know the truth or hear the truth in the recordings then please feel free to phone me鈥�.
Complainant 1 in her evidence confirmed that she had not given consent for any recordings to be made. The Panel found therefore, on the balance of probabilities, that the Member had made unauthorised recordings of her counselling sessions, thereby breaching her privacy and trust.
Allegation 4.2 鈥� PROVED
The Panel applied these findings to paragraphs 31c and 43 of 鈥楪ood Practice鈥� in the 麻豆原创 Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018.
The Panel noted that Complainant 1, when questioned, confirmed that she had not signed a contract with the Member, she had never been advised that he may record counselling sessions and had not provided consent for him to do so. The Panel found therefore that the Member鈥檚 conduct in recording sessions without her knowledge amounted to a breach of Paragraph 31c of the Ethical Framework. It found also that covert recording of a confidential counselling session without consent amounted to a lack of probity and was therefore also in breach of Paragraph 43.
The Panel therefore found that the Member has breached Paragraphs 31c and 43 of the Ethical Framework.
笔颁笔摆鈥
Allegation 1
Allegation 1.1 鈥� PROVED
The Panel found as a matter of fact, based on the copies of the posts referred to and the Member鈥檚 written response, that the Member made two postings on the review page of his company鈥檚 webpage.
Allegation 1.2 鈥� PROVED
The Panel noted that in these postings the Member disclosed, on a public website, personal details from Complainant 1鈥檚 counselling sessions and made inappropriate and unprofessional comments about her including the statements cited in the allegation. The Panel found that posting such comments online was unprofessional and breached the client鈥檚 confidentiality.
The Panel therefore found this allegation proved on the balance of probabilities.
Allegation 1.3 鈥� PROVED in part
The Panel applied these findings to paragraphs 21, 33c, 48, 55a and f of 鈥楪ood Practice鈥� in the 麻豆原创 Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018.
The Panel found that the Member had disclosed details of Complainant 1 and her counselling sessions publicly in circumstances where no consent had been given and there was no legal or ethical justification for that disclosure. It found therefore that his conduct breached Paragraphs 21 and 55 a and f. It found also that such conduct would bring the profession into disrepute and is in breach of Paragraph 48 of the Ethical Framework.
The Panel considered whether the Member鈥檚 conduct amounted to a breach of Paragraph 33c of the Ethical Framework. It noted that this paragraph refers to maintaining a distinction between personal and professional presence on social media, in circumstances where it could 鈥渞esult in harmful dual relationships with clients鈥�. The Panel did not consider that the Member鈥檚 conduct in disclosing information about Complainant 1 online was likely to result in a harmful dual relationship and it did not consider that Paragraph 33c was applicable. It did not find therefore that the Member had breached Paragraph 33c of the Ethical Framework.
The Panel therefore found that the Member has breached Paragraphs 21, 48, 55a and f of the Ethical Framework.
Allegation 2
Allegation 2.1 鈥� PROVED in part
The Panel considered copies of the electronic messages sent by the Member to Complainant 2 on social media. It had no reason to believe that the messages were not genuine. In relation to the specific matters alleged, the Panel found the following:
a. The messages sent by the Member disclosed details of discussions which had taken place in counselling sessions between the Complainant鈥檚 [鈥 and the Member. This Panel found that his conduct in this was unprofessional and breached client confidentiality.
b. The messages did disclose personal identifiable details of Complainant 2鈥檚 [鈥, including her name. However, as the messages were sent only to Complainant 1, who was already aware of the identifiable details, the Panel did not find that the Member鈥檚 conduct in disclosing such details was unprofessional or breached client confidentiality.
c. The Panel found that the contents of the messages included personal comments about Complainant 2鈥檚 [鈥 including that [鈥 鈥渋s [鈥鈥�, 鈥渋s beyond [鈥鈥� and 鈥渋s [鈥.鈥� The Panel found that the Member鈥檚 conduct in making personal and offensive comments was unprofessional and breached confidentiality, as it involved judgements which he had reached as a result of counselling sessions with her.
d. The Panel found that the messages stated that the Member had made recordings of counselling sessions with Complainant 2鈥檚 [鈥. The Panel found that stating in a message to Complainant 2 that he had made recordings of his [鈥 counselling
sessions was unprofessional. However, the Panel did not find that advising Complainant 2 of this amounted to a breach of client confidentiality.
e. The Panel found as a matter of fact that the Member had used an account in the name of [鈥 to send messages to Complainant 2, although he had not sought to hide his identity in the content of the messages. The Panel found that there was no justifiable reason for sending such messages from another person鈥檚 account and it therefore found that the Member鈥檚 conduct was unprofessional. The Panel noted also that using the account of another individual would mean that the messages were visible to the holder of that account. It therefore found that the Member鈥檚 conduct breached client confidentiality.
The Panel therefore found Allegation 2.1 a, c, d and e proved on the balance of probabilities.
Allegation 2.2
The Panel applied these findings to paragraphs 21, 48, 55a and f of 鈥楪ood Practice鈥� in the 麻豆原创 Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018.
The Panel found that the Member鈥檚 conduct in sending messages to Complainant 2 was unprofessional and breached client confidentiality in respect of Allegations 2.1 a, c and e above. The Panel found therefore that his conduct amounted to a breach of Paragraphs 21, 55 a and f.
It found also that the Member鈥檚 conduct in sending unprofessional and unwarranted messages as found in Allegation 2.1 a, c, d and e would bring the profession into disrepute and is in breach of Paragraph 48 of the Ethical Framework.
The Panel therefore found that the Member has breached Paragraphs 21, 48, 55a and f of the Ethical Framework.
Professional Misconduct
The Panel went on to consider whether the actions that it had found proved in relation to Allegations 1.1, 2.1 (i) to (vi), 3.1 (a) and (b), 4.1 of 笔颁笔摆鈥, Allegations 1.1, 1.2, 2.1 (a), (c), (d) and (e) of PCP [鈥 amounted to Professional Misconduct, as defined by the 麻豆原创 Professional Conduct Procedure 2018 which states:
鈥榩rofessional misconduct means a failure to meet professional standards that is of sufficient seriousness that a period of suspension of membership or withdrawal of membership of the Association may be warranted鈥�.
The Panel also noted the guidance in the 麻豆原创 Protocol 14: Guidance on Sanctions, which sets out the following criteria that may result in a decision that suspension or withdrawal of membership is appropriate:
1. Where the Member has knowingly and deliberately behaved in a way to cause harm to the Complainant or other members of the public;
2. Where the Member has been dishonest or lacked integrity;
3. Where the complaint involves sexual misconduct;
4. Where the Member has shown a blatant disregard for professional standards;
5. Where the Member has abused their position or another鈥檚 trust;
6. Where the harm to the Complainant is particularly severe;
7. Where the Member has shown a complete lack of insight into, or remorse for, their behaviour; and
8. Any other factors the Decision Maker considers warrant withdrawal of membership.
Having considered and applied the guidance set out above, the Panel concluded that each and every allegation found proved amounted to professional misconduct as defined. In particular, the Panel found that the Member鈥檚 conduct in engaging in sexual behaviour with a vulnerable client, breaching her confidentiality and posting unprofessional and offensive comments on social media demonstrated a blatant disregard for professional standards and an abuse of his position as a counsellor.
Decision
The Panel found that the Member has failed to comply with the Professional Standards, specifically that he has acted contrary to paragraphs 21, 31c, 34, 35, 43, 48, 55 a and f of the 麻豆原创 Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018.
Sanction
The Panel reconvened on 30 October Year 4 to determine what sanction, if any, it would impose, sanction being a matter for the Panel鈥檚 judgment.
The Panel had before it no representations from the Member for it to consider on the question of sanction. The Panel was satisfied that 麻豆原创 had provided the Member with the Panel鈥檚 written determination of the hearing of 10 September Year 4 and decided that, in light of the Member鈥檚 failure to engage with the hearing of 10 September Year 4, it was fair to proceed to consider sanction in the absence of any representations from the Member.
The Panel reminded itself of the findings of fact it had made and its decisions on breaches of the Ethical Framework 2018 and Professional Misconduct as defined by the 麻豆原创鈥檚 Professional Conduct Procedure and bore in mind throughout its decision making on sanction 麻豆原创鈥檚 Indicative Sanctions Guidance and Protocol 14 and 麻豆原创鈥檚 overarching objective of protecting the public and safeguarding the public interest.
In approaching sanction the Panel took into account its findings of fact, breaches of the Ethical Framework 2018 and Professional Misconduct as defined in relation to both Complainants so that any sanction it would impose would reflect the totality of the Member鈥檚 conduct as found towards both Complainants.
The Panel found no mitigating factors.
The Panel found the aggravating factors to be:
鈥� the Member鈥檚 conduct towards partners in a couple
鈥� the Member鈥檚 conduct was both in person and including the use of social media
鈥� in light of the Member鈥檚 lack of engagement in these proceeding and any evidence of insight, remorse or remediation, the Panel considers there to be a real risk of repetition of the conduct found
The Panel considered the conduct found to be egregious, to be of the utmost seriousness and to encompass the following features 麻豆原创 identifies as factors indicating that withdrawal of membership is an appropriate sanction:
鈥� the complaint involves sexual misconduct
鈥� the Member has shown a blatant disregard for professional standards
鈥� the Member has abused their position of trust
The Panel considered all of the sanctions available to it and the option of imposing no sanction; it considered each sanction in ascending order of restriction. Having done this, the Panel determined that the only sanction that was appropriate and propionate and reflected the seriousness of the Member鈥檚 conduct was withdrawal of his membership of the Association.
Decision on Sanction
The Panel therefore determined to withdraw the Member鈥檚 membership of the Association.
(Where ellipses [ . . . ] are displayed, they indicate an omission of text)
听