Location: Northern Ireland
Interim determination: 28 November 2025
BPC Registration No.: 16334
Registrant: Bernard Cullen
Sanction: Interim Conditions Order imposed for 18 months
Institution: British Psychoanalytical Society (incorporating the Institute of Psychoanalysis) — Fellow; Northern Ireland Psychoanalytic Society — Training Analyst
Source: BPC Interim Orders and Fitness to Practise Outcomes https://www.bpc.org.uk/regulation/complaints-decisions/ & https://www.bpc.org.uk/information-support/find-a-therapist-or-clinic/7044/
Photo required – please send us a evidenced photograph of this individual – to protect the public.
Case Summary
Bernard Cullen, a training and supervising psychoanalyst based in Belfast, was subject to an Interim Conditions Order imposed for 18 months by the BPC on 28 November 2025.
This is an interim measure, meaning the substantive fitness to practise proceedings remain ongoing.
His BPC entry is here: https://www.bpc.org.uk/information-support/find-a-therapist-or-clinic/7044/
Nature of Order
An Interim Conditions Order ‘restricts’ the registrant’s practice while proceedings continue. It does not represent a final finding but indicates the BPC considered conditions on practice necessary during the investigation period. So, investigations are proceeding.
Status
Interim — substantive determination pending.
Current Listing
As of 13 May 2026, Bernard Cullen remains listed as a Training and Supervising Psychoanalyst on the Northern Ireland Psychoanalytic Society’s public psychotherapist directory at https://nipsychoanalyticsociety.com/psychotherapist-list, with no reference to the Interim Conditions Order imposed on 28 November 2025.
As a Training and Supervising Psychoanalyst, his role extends beyond clinical practice to positions of authority over trainees. The absence of any public indication of his regulatory status on that listing is noted, by this archive.
Wider Public Protection Question
As with other cases in this archive, the public interest question is:
What safeguarding or escalation steps were taken while the registrant remained subject to conditions during active jurisdiction?
Cross-Case Context
- In Rushton (COM17-24), a real risk of repetition was found, yet the determination does not evidence police or safeguarding referral during the investigation period.
- In French (COM11-24) and West (COM04-22), similar systemic gaps were identified.
In all cases, professional society listings were not updated to reflect regulatory status, which provokes the question – does this industry self-regulate meaningfully for public safety at all?!