An article in the July-August edition of Private Eye magazine
highlights a controversial loophole which could allow incompetent and
unscrupulous Family Court experts to practice whilst enjoying immunity
from malpractice claims.
It describes how unqualified psychologists are able to act as
experts, and dodge malpractice claims by simply avoiding the use of
various “protected” titles like ‘educational’, ‘clinical’ or ‘forensic’.
This means that they can offer their services without the need to be
registered and regulated by the UK’s watchdog, the Health and
Care Professions Council (HCPC).
The article goes on to express concerns about unregistered court
experts who are often invited to give evidence on cases involving rape,
child exploitation and child contact and care cases. The piece focuses
on one particular psychologist who is not registered but uses several of
the protected titles on his website and has worked on high profile and
often complex child protection cases. However, as he calls himself a
consultant and not a psychologist the HCPC maintains he is not misusing a
protected title and therefore cannot act.
This development is particularly serious because the consultant works
in the Family Court advising on child welfare matters. The new Family
Justice Council Guidelines also require that psychologists working in
the family courts as experts must be HCPC registered – which this
psychologist is not.
Professor Jane Ireland’s 2012 report detailing serious concerns
about the quality of expert evidence from Family Court psychiatrists
and psychologists – it found that over 20% of psychologists in
family cases were unqualified and 65% of expert reports were
either of ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’ quality – is also mentioned in the
Private Eye piece. Jane’s report was responsible for the new Family
Justice guidelines on expert witnesses which were designed to protect
the public.
It’s clear that the law and policy in this area needs urgent
attention. Researching Reform is a strong advocate of regulating this
area further in order to ensure that the quality of expert evidence in
the Family Court, and in other courts too, conforms to best practice
guidelines.
We are adding a redacted version of the Private Eye piece below:
“A gaping hole in the regulation of psychologists
could put the public at risk from unscrupulous, inept or
unaccountable ‘experts’.
Providing psychologists don’t use one of nine so-called
‘protected titles’ – for example, educational, clinical, or
forensic – any can offer their services without the need to
be registered and regulated by the U.K.’s watchdog, the Health
and Care Professions Council (HCPC). Even if serious concerns
or complaints are raised about them, they remain immune
from investigation because they’re not registered.
Nowhere is the danger of the regulatory body’s impotence
more starkly illustrated than in the courts, where it seems
that unregistered, unqualified and potentially unfit psychologists
can operate as ‘experts’ in even the most serious cases
of murder, rape or child sexual exploitation. No-one illustrates
this absurd Catch-22 better than ‘consultant psychologist’
[edited], who has acted as an expert in several high-profile
cases, including the [edited] child grooming case, where a gang
raped and trafficked underage girls.
[Edited], a trained educational psychologist who used to
work in local government, has been the subject of at least
four complaints, including manipulating data and acting beyond
his qualifications and expertise. Three have not been
investigated because he has never been registered with the HCPC.
Because of the fourth, his application for registration in
2012 was refused, when he was judged to be ‘not of good
character’.
According to his website, [edited] also acts in the family
courts in sensitive child contact and care cases, in what
looks like a clear breach of new guidelines from the Family
Justice Council (a public body which advises on family justice
matters) and the industry body the British Psychological
Society (BPS). The guidelines state that family courts expect
all psychologists acting as experts to be HCPC-registered unless
they are academics.
In fact his website offers services in several of the
areas of expertise covered by protected titles (educational,
forensic, practitioner, counselling), again contrary to what the
BPS says in its online directory of chartered psychologists
(in which [edited] is listed). It says that ‘anyone offering
services within these [protected title] areas must also be registered’ with the HCPC.
[Edited] website logo even uses the word ‘educational’ –
but because he simply chooses to call himself a ‘consultant’,
the HCPC maintains he is not misusing a protected title and
thus it can’t act. It adds that statutory regulation
and corresponding regulatory titles are decided by the
government, and it’s for ministers to change them. The BPS,
meanwhile, says it now only ‘advises’ on standards and best
practice, ‘but where we are aware of gaps in regulation, we
raise these with the regulator’ – i.e. the HCPC!
The BPS says it can’t comment on individual members, but
adds that it has raised concerns that the general
title ‘psychologist’ is not protected. It still seems happy to
promote [edited], though.
As the HCPC admits, [edited] is not the only one dancing
rings around registration. Prof. Jane Ireland – author of
a damning 2012 study which triggered the recent family court
reform, having found that one in five psychologists in
family cases was working beyond their expertise and 65% of
expert reports were either of ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’ quality –
tells the Eye: ‘All practising psychologists who
act as expert witnesses should be regulated so that the
public are protected’.
[Edited] was refused registration because of ‘concerns about
his character’ after staff at [edited] Young
offenders Institution asked in 2012 for proof of identity and,
er, HCPC registration. It triggered lengthy and
‘inappropriate’ correspondence between [edited] and the jail. An
HCPC regulatory panel threw out his appeal in 2013, saying he
was completely unable to accept that his written outbursts had
been unacceptable, that he had demonstrated no insight into
the potential consequences and that he had shown no remorse.
The panel said that he had displayed a similar attitude
in communication with the HCPC itself, that it could not rule
out a repetition of similar behaviour and that his conduct
would ‘damage public confidence in the regulatory process’.
[Edited] response to the three complaints made by fellow
psychologists has been to fire off counter-allegations, the
irony being that those properly registered and regulated
complainants then find themselves under HCPC investigation,
while he escapes.
Thus, in the [edited] grooming case, [edited], a registered
chartered psychologist, was so alarmed to find an unregistered
educational psychologist, whom she considered neither qualified
to reach his conclusions about an adult sex attacker nor
completely open about those conclusions, that she complained to
both the HCPC and the BPS. She was told neither could do
anything. Instead she herself was investigated when [edited]
fired off a counterblast. ‘It was very irritating, but of
course there was no merit in his complaints and they were
all swiftly dismissed,’ she told the Eye. [Edited]
boasts on his website about the [edited] case: ‘Of the seven
men convicted, five were given life sentences. The man I
assessed was given a sentence substantially below that of his
co-defendants, and without a tariff’.
Another victim of [edited]’s revenge salvos was [edited], an
academic and leading clinical and forensic psychologist. After
taking advice, he complained to the then regulator, the BPS,
that [edited] had manipulated IQ test scores in the trial of a
man accused in 2008 of converting replica weapons into
firearms used in a series of murders. It made the man appear
less intelligent, and therefore less culpable. [The academic]
told the Court at the time he had ‘never encountered such
extraordinary conduct before’. In the event it seems [edited]
evidence held little or no sway: the defendant was convicted
and sentenced to life.
When [edited] duly counter-complained, however, the BPS
decided to investigate [edited] complaint first. It swiftly
exonerated [the academic]; but it never got round to
investigating [edited] because, in the meantime, fitness to
practise and regulatory issues had been passed to the HCPC.
[The academic] told the Eye:
‘Guidelines indicate
that the need to protect clients from unsafe practice from
psychological experts and professional witnesses is paramount.
But there is absolutely no protection if a psychologist is not
registered’.
In a third case involving [edited], while he again escaped
investigation of complaints about his expertise and findings,
it took almost two years before his unfounded
counter-allegations against a registered psychologist were
dismissed – this time with an HCPC apology.
No-one can say whether the complaints about [edited] would
have been upheld. The scandal is that because he can
so easily act outside the regulatory system, no-one even
bothers to consider them.”
What changes would you like to see in the regulation of Family Court experts? We’d love to hear your thoughts.
A very big thank you to Roger Crawford, who alerted us to this article.
No comments:
Post a Comment