Psychologist’s Racist Social Media Post
7 March 2023
A registered Practitioner Psychologist appeared in person on his appeal to the High Court against a findings of misconduct and impairment of fitness to practise by the Conduct and Competence Committee of the Health and Care Professions Council: Lambert-Simpson v Health and Care Professions Council [2023] EWHC 481 (Admin) Fordham J
The Panel found that he posted inappropriate and offensive comments and/or posts on his social media account and that a comment posted during lockdown I have decided to self-isolate not because of any chink based “it’s got a pulse let’s eat it” stuff but mainly because I really hate people was racially motivated.
The three posts on social media were believed by the registrant to be going only to a closed group of Facebook friends.
The registrant asserted that his autism was not considered adequately or at all by the Panel. He appeared in person and when the hearing process became literally unbearable for him, he became disconnected and walked away which was indicative of his autism. He felt threatened and intimidated by a belligerent approach being adopted towards him. He expected a sensitivity from the panel which was entirely lacking.
But his Lordship found there was no failure to protect the registrant. No such passage was identified by him in the transcript. He did not at any stage link his conduct to autism. Neither did he adduce any expert evidence.
The Court agreed with counsel for the HCPC, Guy Micklewright, firstly, that “racially motivated” was primarily about personal motivation and what the individual had in mind and, secondly, that the social media post was “racially motivated” contrasted with an allegation that a practitioner had “used antisemitic words” in a speech as was alleged in the case of a registered pharmacist.[1]
That was a case in which the panel had taken account of what it considered was the pharmacist’s intention. It was an error of approach because “using antisemitic words” called for an objective test based on the words used and did not depend on intention. The present case stood in sharp contrast. The case would have been very different if the allegation had been that the registrant “used racist words”. That would have called for an objective test based on the words used. But it was framed in terms of “racial motivation”. The Panel needed to consider the registrant’s subjective state of mind.
The Panel’s underpinning reasoning in support of its conclusion was clear. It identified that the word “chink” was a “racial slur” used to describe Chinese people which was wholly inappropriate and clearly offensive to right minded people. It identified the reference to Chinese people as uncivilised people who would eat anything that had a pulse as derogatory, inappropriate and offensive. He had used these words in an attempt at humour with his intention being to use race as a cheap way of getting a laugh. This was fully capable of supporting the conclusion derived that the social media posting was racially motivated.
The Court approved Mr Micklewright’s encapsulation of when an “inappropriate” and/or “offensive” communication would be “racially motivated”. There were really two elements: (i) that the act in question (here the posting of the content) had a purpose behind it which at least in significant part was referable to race; and (ii) that the act was done in a way showing hostility or a discriminatory attitude to the relevant racial group. The Panel was satisfied as to those elements.
The combination was a racial slur (blatantly racist) and a well-known racist trait (highly derogatory) in combination. The intention to try and get a “laugh” did not in any way detract from the fact that this was entirely or in significant part a purpose referable to race; nor from the fact that this was done in a way showing hostility and/or discriminatory attitude. The registrant could provide no explanation other than descriptions of regrets and cringing and his protestations that he was not racist and everybody knew it.
In his Lordship’s judgment there was hostility in this behaviour. There was hostility in the state of mind of the person communicating. Attitudes mattered. The relevant hostility could thrive in attempted “humour” as it could in “ridicule”. The so-called private context may be relevantly or especially revealing.
The appeal was dismissed. The sanction of four months suspension with a review was appropriate and necessary in the public interest.
[1] Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care v General Pharmaceutical Council (Ali) [2021] EWHC 1692 (Admin)