Shaun Parsons
4 Halton Way
Gosforth
Newastle upon Tyne
Tyne & Wear
NE3 5RQ
s.parsons@pmpsych.co.uk
Shaun Parsons born 16 August 1963 is a psychologist from Newcastle Upon Tyne. He's currently on his third limited company Parsons Marshall Psychology Ltd with his wife Margaret as the company secretary. According to Companies House, Shaun has used his home address as his business correspondence address in the past but now choses to hide behind virtual addresses, such as 145-157 St John Street, London, EC1V 4PW and 43 Bedford Street, London WC2E 9HA.
Shaun Parsons is a doctor only by virtue of his Ph.D. He is not a medical doctor and his insistence that he is addressed as 'Dr Parsons' is highly inappropiate outside of the academic arena but is consistant with his narcissistic and arrogant traits (he refuses to accept when he is wrong unless backed into a corner). He is a socially awkward individual and lacks the ability to relate to a person. This lack of ability and his apparent demeanor of someone that just doesn't enjoy life makes his job as a psychologist impossible. No subject is likely to be open and honest with Shaun thus resulting in anaccurate risk assessments.
In 2022, Shaun Parsons was asked to carry out a risk assessment of an individual (LM) with 2014 convictions for indecent images and 2019 convictions for breaches. LM denies that he is guilty of either the 2014 or 2019 convictions and since Shaun's risk assessment, the High Court have ruled that Kent Police used false evidence to obtain the 2014 convictions. Evidence has since come to light that the judge in the 2019 trial lied to jurors to obtain guilty verdicts. Shaun was in possession of this evidence and more that proved LM could not possibly have committed the alleged 2019 breaches but he ignored it.
Despite LM's denial of the offences for which he was convicted, Shaun invented some rule: "I am not here to decide facts and that I am actually forbidden from deciding facts...I have to accept the findings of the Court, as well as any previous convictions". There is no such rule, Shaun was well within his rights to explore the possiblity that LM was innocent. Or Shaun could have chosen to refuse the case or he could have requested a fact finding hearing before proceeding with the assessment. Fact finding hearings establish facts, even going behind convictions, for example Bedfordshire Borough Council v LW.
It is clear that Shaun's loyalty lies with HM Courts and Tribunals Service and not with the Health and Care Professions Council or the British Psychological Society.