Professional Conduct notice / KS

April 2025: Kristian Shallcross, Reference No 00921075 , Registrant ID 252356

Allegations

The Allegations being considered are as follows:

Allegation 1

1.1 On or around 20 July Year 3 in a therapeutic session with the Complainant, the Member:

(a) sat beside the Complainant and/or began to hug her and/or held her hand and/or

(b) hugged the Complainant more frequently and/or for longer periods of time and/or

(d) said to the Complainant words to the effect that he was not ready to say goodbye and/or that he had an overwhelming urge to kiss her

(e) as the Complainant was leaving, the Member positioned himself between her and the door and requested another hug and/or said words to the effect of 鈥渃ome here鈥� and/or kissed the Complainant on the lips for several seconds and/or kissed the Complainant again and/or groped her bottom with both hands and/or said words to the effect that she had a 鈥渇antastic arse鈥�

(f) kissed the Complainant again and put his tongue in her mouth.

1.2 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with paragraphs 33 a.
and/or 34 and/or 48 of鈥� Good Practice 鈥檌n the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018 which state:

33: We will establish and maintain appropriate professional and personal boundaries in our relationships with clients by ensuring that:

a. these boundaries are consistent with the aims of working together and beneficial to the client

34: We will not have sexual relationships with or behave sexually towards our clients, supervisees or trainees

48: We will avoid any actions that will bring our profession into disrepute

Allegations 1.1 (b) and/or 1.1 (c) and/or 1.1 (d) and/or 1.1 (e) and/or 1.1 (f) are allegations of sexual conduct.

Allegations 1.1 (b) and/or 1.1 (c) and/or 1.1 (d) and/or 1.1 (e) and/or 1.1 (f) amount to professional misconduct as defined in the Professional Conduct Procedure.

Preliminary issues

Proceeding in the Member鈥檚 absence

1. The Member did not attend the hearing, nor was he represented in his absence.

2. [鈥, on behalf of the Association applied for the hearing to proceed in the Member鈥檚 absence under Rule 5.9(a)(i) of the Professional Conduct Procedure (PCP). [鈥 took the Panel through the history of correspondence sent to the Member, pointing out that the Association had had no contact with him since 15 May Year 4, at which time he indicated, by email, that he would attend any hearing. Since that time, the Association had repeatedly written to him but received no response. In particular, by email, on 26 July Year 4, the Association informed him that it was looking to schedule the hearing on 18 to 21 November Year 4; on 5 August Year 4, he was provided
with the provisional date of 19 and 20 November Year 4 and on 29 August Year 4, the Association shared the folder of documents with him.

3. On 28 August Year 4, the Association sent the Member a letter by special delivery, informing him that the hearing had been fixed for 19 and 20 November Year 4 and advising him of the Association鈥檚 intention to apply for the hearing to proceed in his absence. On 9 September Year 4, the Member was informed that he would receive links to enable him to join the hearing and on 13 November Year 4, links for the hearing were sent to him.

Background

4. The Member is a Counsellor and member of the 网爆门. The Complainant was his patient. The first time they worked together was in May Year 1 and they had approximately 100 sessions, with the Complainant having weekly and sometimes twice weekly sessions when she was going through bad episodes. The Complainant stopped working with the Member in May Year 2 as she went to marriage counselling.

5. The second time that the Member and the Complainant worked together was in April Year 3. The therapy sessions had been held remotely, but on 13 July Year 3, the Complainant went for the first in-person session with the Member.

6. On 20 July Year 3, the Member went for another in-person session, scheduled for 13:00. It is during this session that the Complainant alleged that the Member behaved in the manner as set out in allegation 1.

7. After the session, the Complainant told her husband about the allegations.

8. On 22 July Year 3, the Complainant sent the Member an email letting him know that she had sent the payment over, having had some difficulties with her bank. This was not accurate, but she had hoped that the Member would acknowledge what had happened.

9. On 25 July Year 3, the Complainant wrote an account of what allegedly happened in her journal. Subsequently, she raised a complaint with the 网爆门.

Member鈥檚 Response

10. The Member, in his written submissions stated that he began work with the Complainant in June Year 1, in response to her telephone inquiry about counselling. He agreed to work with her online and over Zoom and, save for a brief break in November Year 1, continued to work with the Complainant until 25 May Year 2.

11. On 17 April Year 3, the Member stated that he received an email from the Complainant requesting to resume counselling. He agreed and they resumed on 20 April Year 3 over the online platform Skype. He said that sessions were arranged for 20 April, 5 May, 20 May, 5 June, 22 June and 30 June Year 3 and during these sessions, the Complainant disclosed episodes of [鈥 by her [鈥.

12. The Member explained that the first face-to-face session was arranged on 13 July Year 3 at the Complainant鈥檚 request. The Member stated that during this session, the Complainant disclosed what he described as an increasingly concerning pattern of [鈥. He said that after this session, he met with his supervisor on 18 July Year 3 and raised concerns about working with the Complainant. He said that he agreed with his supervisor that he was no longer able to continue the therapeutic relationship with the Complainant and that sessions should be ended with the involvement of the client.

13. The Member said that on 20 July Year 3, he met face-to-face with the Complainant and explained to her that following a meeting with his supervisor, they had agreed that it was no longer therapeutic for his sessions with the Complainant to continue and should end, and the session had focused on that. He maintained that during that session he did not kiss the Complainant. He accepted that he did hug the Complainant after she requested a hug at the end of the session as she was upset due to the ending of therapy and their sessions. He described the hug as a brief shoulder height hug and not part of any sexual contact. He explained that he did this in line with a commitment to the 网爆门鈥檚 ethical principles of non-maleficence and then ending of the therapeutical relationship.

Evidence before the Panel

14. The Panel heard live oral evidence on affirmation from the Complainant. It was also provided with documentary evidence, which included the following:

鈥� The Association鈥檚 bundle of evidence and exhibits, which included:

o The 网爆门 Complaints form, completed and submitted by the Complainant, which included her account of the therapy session on 20 July Year 3;

o Screenshots of text messages and email correspondence between the Complainant and the Member;

o The witness statement of the Complainant, signed and dated 26 June Year 4
o A copy of the extract from the Complainant鈥檚 journal, dated 25 July Year 3.

鈥� The Member鈥檚 written response to the allegations.

Decision on Facts

15. In reaching its decisions on the facts, the Panel took into account the oral evidence of the Complainant, together with all the documents relied upon, which included written submissions provided by the Member. In addition, the Panel took into account the submissions made by [鈥 on behalf of the 网爆门.

16. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Clerk and bore in mind that it was for the 网爆门 to prove the alleged facts and to do so on the balance of probabilities. In relation to the allegations of sexual conduct, the Clerk advised the Panel in accordance with the cases of Haris v GMC [2020] EWHC 2518 (Admin) and Basson v GMC.

17. The Panel acknowledged that this was a case of one person鈥檚 word against another, and there was no independent support for the Complainant鈥檚 account. Nevertheless, the Panel bore in mind that the Complainant鈥檚 record in her journal and her initial account to the 网爆门 within the Complaints form were relatively contemporaneous with the incident alleged to have occurred on 20 July Year 3. Furthermore, the Panel considered that all three written sources of the Complainant鈥檚 account were broadly consistent with each other. Whilst the Panel noted that there were slight differences in the respective accounts, it did not consider that they were material differences which undermined the credibility of the account.

18. The Panel acknowledged that the Member denied the allegations and had provided his own written account of events. However, the Panel bore in mind that his account had been untested in evidence, in contrast to the Complainant who had attended the hearing, given her evidence under affirmation and answered the Panel鈥檚 questions. In her oral evidence, the Complainant confirmed the accuracy of her witness statement, her journal and her initial account in the 网爆门 Complaints Form. In light of this, the Panel preferred the account of the Complainant to that of the Member.

Allegation 1.1(a):

1.1 On or around 20 July Year 3 in a therapeutic session with the Complainant, the Member:
(a) sat beside the Complainant and/or began to hug her and/or held her hand

19. The Panel took account of the written and oral evidence of the Complainant. In her witness statement, she said that the Member: 鈥渢ook hold of both my hands with both of his hands, and intermittently released my right hand to stroke my right arm and hand.鈥� Given that the Panel preferred the evidence of the Complainant to that of the Member, the Panel finds fact 1.1(a) proved.

Allegation 1.1(b):