No Remorse: Lessons From Psychology Board v Emmerson (2025) VCAT

The disciplinary case of Psychology Board of Australia v Emmerson (2025) VCA provides valuable insight into how a failure to engage with the disciplinary process and a failure to demonstrate insight and remorse is highly likely to exacerbate risk of receiving more onerous disciplinary orders. This disciplinary case is also interesting insofar as the proven breach of the professional standards occurred 13 years prior to the commencement of disciplinary action by the Psychology Board.

A psychologist, Dr. Gordon Emmerson, engaged in a romantic and sexual relationship with a woman, referred to as IBY, who was both his student and his client. The disciplinary hearing was principally in relation to determining whether Dr. Emmerson’s actions constituted professional misconduct. Dr. Emmerson chose not to participate in the hearing and as such the Tribunal drew factual inferences from a statement of agreed facts provided by Dr Emmerson’s lawyers.

Key Facts and Timeline

• 2011-2012: IBY first met Dr. Emmerson as a student in his hypnotherapy and ego state therapy courses.

• Late 2012: While still his student, IBY began seeing Dr. Emmerson for private psychological therapy to support her during a relationship breakdown. She attended approximately 4-6 sessions.

• Early December 2012: At the end of their final therapy session, Dr. Emmerson asked IBY if he could contact her to “catch up for a coffee.” She agreed.

• Late December 2012: They went for coffee and then dinner.

• February 2013: They publicly declared their relationship on social media.

• March 2013: They went on a trip together and IBY moved into Dr. Emmerson’s home.

• September 2014: They married.

• April 2022: They divorced.

• September 2022: The Psychology Board of Australia received a confidential notification about the inappropriate relationship.

In response to the Psychology Board, Dr. Emmerson denied that a therapeutic relationship existed and claimed IBY was only ever a student and a “fellow peer.” However, the Tribunal preferred the clear and consistent evidence from IBY in finding that a therapist-client relationship did exist. Interestingly, IBY’s former partner from 2012 was also called on to provide evidence.

Breaches of the APS Code of Ethics

The Tribunal found that Dr. Emmerson’s actions breached multiple standards of the APS Code of Ethics. The most significant breaches are outlined below.

1. The Clear and Direct Prohibition on Sexual Relationships

This was the most serious and straightforward breach.

• The Rule: The Code strictly prohibits psychologists from having a sexual relationship with a current client under any circumstances. It also prohibits sexual activity with a former client for at least two years after the professional relationship ends. (Note that this prohibition is now extended indefinitely under the 2025 Code of Conduct).

• Dr. Emmerson’s Breach: The romantic relationship began almost immediately after the professional relationship ended—within weeks of the final therapy session and while the teacher-student relationship was also very recent. This was a violation of this rule.

2. Breach of Integrity and Exploitation (General Principle C)

• The Rule: Psychologists must act with integrity, be committed to the best interests of their clients, and refrain from exploiting the particular trust and confidence that arises in the therapeutic relationship. They must avoid conflicts of interest that could harm a client.

• Dr. Emmerson’s Breach: IBY was in a vulnerable position, seeking help for a relationship breakdown. The Tribunal held that Dr. Emmerson exploited the trust and power dynamic of the therapist-client relationship.

3. Failure to Maintain Professional Boundaries (General Principle B)

• The Rule: Psychologists must be aware of and maintain proper professional boundaries with clients. This is the foundation for a safe and effective therapeutic relationship.

• Dr. Emmerson’s Breach: He completely dismantled the professional boundary by initiating a personal relationship. The act of asking a client out for a coffee at the end of a therapy session was, in itself, a major boundary violation. The Tribunal characterised this as a “clear transgression of professional boundaries.”

4. Disreputable Conduct

• The Rule: Psychologists must avoid conduct that reflects poorly on their ability to practise or that brings the psychology profession into disrepute.

• Dr. Emmerson’s Breach: His actions were deemed “substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a psychologist,” especially given his 30+ years of experience. The Tribunal was concerned with whether this behaviour would damage public trust in the profession.

The Outcome and VCAT’s Reasoning

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) made the following orders:

1. Reprimand: Dr Emmerson was formally reprimanded.

2. Disqualification from Registration for 18 Months: Dr. Emmerson was restricted from applying to be a psychologist for a year and a half from the date of the order. This was due to:

   • Lack of Insight: Dr. Emmerson was not forthcoming in relation to his actions commencing a relationship with a client, but only acknowledged it was with a student. Throughout the dsiciplinary process Dr. Emmerson showed little remorse or understanding of the harm he caused.

   • General Deterrence: The Tribunal considered it was required to send a strong message that boundary violations carried severe consequences, protecting the public and maintaining professional standards.

3. Prohibition from Providing Health Services: Dr. Emmerson was banned from working in any role involving counselling, mental health, supervision, or health education (even as a volunteer) until he was re-registered as a psychologist. The Tribunal reasoned that this prohibition was protective and in response to the absence of insight as to the grounds of his de-registration and disciplinary action.

Summary

In summary, Dr. Emmerson, an experienced psychologist, breached his position of trust by entering into a romantic relationship with a vulnerable client/student immediately after their professional relationship ended.  The Tribunal’s decision highlights that such conduct constitutes serious “professional misconduct” and will result in decisive protective steps by the Board. It does not appear to have been relevant to the determination of the Tribunal that over 13 years had transpired since the breach had occurred.