Adam David Feary

Introduction

Adam David Feary is a former UK registered nurse (Nursing and Midwifery Council registration 94D0883E) whose career ended in erasure from the professional register. On 11 August 2026, the NMC’s Fitness to Practise Committee struck him off after finding his fitness to practise impaired by reason of criminal convictions for making indecent photographs of a child, possessing a prohibited image of a child, possessing extreme pornographic images, and possessing a paedophile manual. The case stands out because the panel found that the conduct occurred outside Feary’s nursing practice and had not in the past put patients at risk — yet the offences were so serious, and the attitudinal concerns behind them so deep-seated, that removal from the register was treated as the only proportionate outcome. The determination is recorded by MedicWatch, an independent record of UK healthcare regulator decisions.

Background Information

The convictions at the centre of this case were handed down at the Crown Court at Norwich on 12 August 2025. Feary was convicted of three counts of making indecent photographs/pseudo photographs of a child, contrary to section 1(1)(a) and 6 of the Protection of Children Act 1978; possessing a prohibited image of a child, contrary to section 62(1) and 66(2) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009; possessing extreme pornographic image/images portraying an act of intercourse/oral sex with a dead/alive animal, contrary to section 63(1), (7)(d) and 67(3) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008; and possessing a paedophile manual, contrary to section 69(1) and (3) of the Serious Crime Act 2015.

He pleaded guilty, albeit at a late stage in the proceedings. The scale of the material involved was large: the panel noted over 14,000 images of children in total and nearly 2,000 Category A images, the most serious classification, together with possession of a paedophile manual. The NMC subsequently brought these convictions before its Fitness to Practise Committee as a substantive hearing, which began on 11 August 2026.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

Adjudicated vs. alleged. Feary’s convictions are matters of court record: he was convicted at Norwich Crown Court on 12 August 2025 after pleading guilty at a late stage of the proceedings. The NMC panel found the facts proved on the certificates of conviction under Rule 31(2) and (3), and all charges were found proved. Nothing on this page rests on an unproven allegation.

Before the committee, the question was not whether the offences occurred but what they meant for Feary’s fitness to practise. The panel noted that the conduct occurred outside Mr Feary’s nursing practice and had not in the past put patients at risk. That consideration did not save him. It found that he had breached the fundamental tenets of the nursing profession and brought its reputation into disrepute, the offences being specified offences under NMC guidance FtPC 2C-1.

It found the conduct extremely difficult to remedy, citing a repeated pattern of behaviour and deep-seated attitudinal concerns, over 14,000 images of children in total, nearly 2,000 Category A images, and possession of a paedophile manual. It found very limited insight and no evidence of remorse or remediation, concluded there was a risk of repetition, and found fitness to practise impaired on both public protection and public interest grounds.

In mitigation, the panel noted that Mr Feary pleaded guilty at the Crown Court, albeit at a late stage in the proceedings, and noted mitigating factors outlined by the sentencing judge which are not in the public record. From a regulatory perspective, it considered those factors carried less weight. The aggravating features it identified were deliberate breaches of the Code; absence of or limited insight; the age and vulnerability of the children who were depicted in the footage; the high volume of images collected over a period of time; deliberately and systematically searching for indecent images portraying young children including Category A images; and multiple victims.

Public Reaction and Consequences

Because the case was determined on conviction rather than contested allegations, the public record is unusually clear-cut, and the regulatory consequences followed directly from it. The committee rejected no action, a caution order, conditions of practice and suspension, determining the case falls within the definition of a highest risk case, and imposed a striking-off order together with an interim suspension order for 18 months covering the appeal period. Its reasoning was that the requirement to protect the public outweighed any mitigating factors in this case.

The determination itself became part of the permanent public record of NMC decisions, and independent record services such as MedicWatch now document the outcome against Feary’s name and registration number. For a nurse, that public trail is consequential in practical terms: any employer, agency or member of the public checking his registration encounters the erasure and the convictions that produced it.

Current Status

As of the decision date of 11 August 2026, Feary stands struck off the NMC register. Being struck off — the regulator calls this erasure — removes the practitioner from the register entirely, so he is no longer permitted to practise the nursing profession in the UK. The decision is dated the same day the hearing began, 11 August 2026, with an 18-month interim suspension order covering the appeal period. Erasure can be reviewed after a minimum of five years, but is otherwise indefinite.

Impact on Their Career/Life

The striking-off order ends Feary’s nursing career in the UK. Removal from the register means he cannot practise as a nurse, and the panel’s findings make any early return unlikely: it identified a risk of repetition, found the conduct extremely difficult to remedy, and saw no evidence of remorse or remediation. Even at a future review, the panel’s characterisation of the case as a highest risk case, the repeated pattern of behaviour and deep-seated attitudinal concerns, and the very limited insight it found would weigh heavily against restoration.

The convictions themselves — under the Protection of Children Act 1978, the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 and the Serious Crime Act 2015 — amount to a criminal record of the gravest kind for a healthcare professional. The panel acknowledged the guilty plea and the sentencing judge’s mitigating factors, but concluded that from a regulatory perspective they carried less weight, and that the requirement to protect the public outweighed any mitigating factors in this case. Whatever remains of his professional standing, the determination ensures the findings travel with his name in the public record of the profession.