Therapy Today

skills and attitudes as a tutor
to manage group dynamics
appropriately, to the
detriment of the complainant.
Findings
On balance, having fully
considered the above, the
Panel made the following
findings:
••
The complainant should
have been made aware of
the existence of the
Suitability Procedure prior
to its implementation on 9
November 2009. She should
also have been given the
opportunity to have the
meaning of this procedure
clarified before the meeting
on 9 November 2009.
However, the Panel found
that Ms Cooper was not
solely responsible for
these significant lapses
in communication
••
Ms Cooper made a
decision, having consulted
appropriately, to implement
the Suitability Procedure at
Stage Two, rather than at
Stage One, which was allowed
••
The Panel found that Ms
Cooper, as programme leader,
did suspend the complainant
from the course, using a
sanction which was not
permitted under the
Suitability Procedure at Stage
Two. When questioned, Ms
Cooper admitted frankly that
she should not have done so
••
The Panel found that Ms
Cooper’s level of skills and
her attitudes as a tutor to
manage group dynamics
during the course did not fall
below the standards that may
reasonably be expected from
a practitioner exercising
reasonable care and skill.
Decision
Accordingly, the Panel was
unanimous in its decision
that these findings amounted
to professional malpractice
in that Ms Cooper unfairly
suspended the complainant,
and was partly at fault in not
providing information about
the Suitability Procedure
prior to its implementation.
In these instances, Ms
Cooper’s behaviour fell
below the standards expected
of a practitioner exercising
reasonable care and skill.
Mitigation
Ms Cooper conveyed
openness and sincerity to
the Panel, and demonstrated
that she had since considered
and addressed the issues
arising from the complaint.
The flawed Suitability
Procedure was withdrawn
and Ms Cooper participated
in efforts to facilitate the
return of the complainant
to the course. The Panel
was satisfied that Ms Cooper
had already demonstrated
significant learning from
these events, both in her
own statements at the
hearing, and also when
questioned by the Panel.
Sanction
Consequently, the Panel
did not impose a sanction.
Withdrawal of membership
Pennie Aston
Reference No 545827
London N3 3DR
During the course of a
Professional Conduct
Hearing, information came
to light which was sufficient
to refer for consideration
under Article 4.6 of the
Memorandum and Articles
of Association.
The summary of the
information, together with
the allegations as notified
to Ms Aston, were as follows.
During the course of a
Hearing where Ms Aston
was a complainant, evidence
came to the attention of the
Adjudication Panel regarding
a statement supplied by
her from Ms A, a witness.
The evidence suggested
that Ms Aston had
substantially altered Ms A’s
statement about Ms B, the
member complained against,
which was very much to the
detriment of the latter. It is
further alleged that Ms Aston
had knowingly and
deliberately falsified evidence.
Ms Aston allegedly admitted
that she had substantially
altered Ms A’s statement with
the intention of undermining
Ms B in the Hearing, for
which she apologised.
The Panel viewed this
matter very seriously and
raised it as a separate matter
with Ms Aston at the Hearing.
Allegedly, Ms Aston could
not provide any rational
explanation for her actions
and accepted any
consequences that may
arise from it.
Despite her apology,
the Panel remained very
concerned about the matter
and referred it, formally, to
be considered under Article
4.6 of the Memorandum
and Articles of Association.
Ms Aston was sent a copy
of the information received
from herself, Ms A, Ms B and
the Professional Conduct
Panel, together with a copy
of the Ethical Framework for
Good Practice in Counselling
and Psychotherapy and the
procedure for Article 4.6.
The nature of the information
raised questions about the
suitability of Ms Aston’s
continuing membership of
the Association and suggested
that she had brought, or may
yet bring, not only the
Association, but also the
reputations of counselling/
psychotherapy into disrepute.
The information further
suggested that there may
have been serious breaches
of the Ethical Framework for
Good Practice in Counselling
and Psychotherapy and it
raised concerns about the
following, in particular:
••
Allegedly, Ms Aston
dishonestly, deceitfully
and deliberately altered and
falsified a witness statement.
Further, Ms Aston submitted
it as evidence under the
Professional Conduct
Procedure to be considered
in a complaint that she had
made against another BACP
member, with the alleged
intention of undermining
the member complained
against in the Hearing and
causing her detriment
••
Ms Aston’s alleged lack of
respect for Ms A in altering
her statement without her
consent or knowledge
••
The information suggests
that Ms Aston’s alleged
behaviour is incompatible
with the values and
principles of counselling
and psychotherapy and is
lacking in the personal
moral qualities of integrity,
sincerity, respect, fairness,
and wisdom to which
counsellors and
psychotherapists are strongly
encouraged to aspire. It also
suggests that Ms Aston
failed to treat colleagues
respectfully and to exercise
probity. Further it suggests
that Ms Aston failed in her
responsibility both as a
member and provider of
information to participate
appropriately and honestly
in the Professional Conduct
Procedure of this Association.
The member was invited
to send in a written response,
and made a response.
The Article 4.6 Panel
decided to implement Article
4.6 of the Memorandum and
Articles of Association and
withdraw BACP membership
from Ms Aston to take effect
28 days from notification
of this decision. The reasons
November 2010/www.therapytoday.net/Therapy Today 47