David Kenneth Robson
Introduction
David Kenneth Robson is a former UK registered nurse (Nursing and Midwifery Council registration 07G1229E) whose name was erased from the professional register on 1 July 2026. At a substantive hearing that opened and closed the same day, the NMC’s Fitness to Practise Committee found all facts proved via the Rule 31 certificate of conviction and found his fitness to practise impaired by reason of his convictions. The convictions were entered at Teesside Magistrates’ Court in February 2025 and concerned indecent photographs of a child. The outcome was a striking-off order, with an interim suspension to cover the appeal period. MedicWatch, an independent record of UK healthcare regulator decisions, documents the outcome.
Background Information
This case began not with workplace conduct but in a criminal court. On 14 February 2025 Robson was convicted at Teesside Magistrates’ Court of: (a) distributing an indecent photograph/pseudo-photograph of a child, contrary to section 1(1)(b) and 6 of the Protection of Children Act 1978; and (b) and (c) making indecent photographs/pseudo-photographs of a child, contrary to section 1(1)(a) and 6 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 — three counts in all, one of distribution and two of making. The determination records no suggestion the offending occurred in his nursing practice; the regulatory case was built on the convictions themselves. Per the findings, he remains subject to a suspended prison sentence, a sexual harm prevention order and sex offender notification requirements — measures still in force when the committee met.
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Adjudicated vs. alleged. The findings against David Kenneth Robson were made by an NMC Fitness to Practise Committee on the civil standard (balance of probabilities). The convictions at the centre of this matter are matters of criminal court record, entered at Teesside Magistrates’ Court on 14 February 2025; the committee’s findings on impairment and sanction are civil-regulatory determinations, not criminal adjudications.
The case was procedurally simple and grave in substance. The panel found all facts proved on the basis of the certificate of conviction under Rule 31 — the mechanism by which a conviction is put before a regulatory panel without relitigating the offences. The fact of conviction, covering the three counts under the Protection of Children Act 1978, was sufficient, and on that basis the panel determined that Robson’s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of his convictions, on grounds of public protection and the public interest.
In weighing mitigation and aggravation, the record is stark on one side: the panel identified no mitigating features in this case. On the other, it took into account the abuse of children, and the nature, volume and categorisation of the images as set out in the court information and the judge’s sentencing remarks. It further cited his failure to attend hearings or engage in the fitness to practise process without good reason, and his absence of insight; the panel had no evidence that he had developed insight, and noted his lack of engagement with the proceedings.
The sanction followed from that assessment: a striking-off order — erasure from the register — with an interim suspension order to cover the appeal period, so that Robson could not practise in the interval even if he chose to appeal.
Public Reaction and Consequences
The consequences are best read in the two layers the record fixes. The criminal court had already imposed, by February 2025, a suspended sentence of imprisonment, a sexual harm prevention order and sex offender notification requirements. The regulator’s erasure in July 2026 then removed Robson from the NMC register altogether, ending his ability to work as a nurse in the UK. The determination is now part of the permanent public record of NMC decisions, and MedicWatch documents the outcome against his name and registration number.
His non-engagement also shaped the public posture of the case. Robson failed to attend hearings or engage in the fitness to practise process, so the committee decided the matter without his participation, proceeding on the certificate of conviction. That absence meant no personal mitigation and nothing to counterweight the seriousness the panel found in the offending.
Current Status
As of the decision date of 1 July 2026, Robson stands struck off the NMC register. Being struck off — the regulator calls this “erasure” — removes the practitioner from the register, and he is no longer permitted to practise the nursing profession in the UK. Erasure can be reviewed after a minimum of five years, but is otherwise indefinite. In the meantime, the interim suspension order covers the appeal period. Beyond the register, the criminal-court measures remain: the determination notes that he remains subject to a suspended prison sentence, a sexual harm prevention order and sex offender notification requirements. The public record offers no indication that he has sought restoration.
Impact on Their Career/Life
The striking-off order ends Robson’s nursing career in the UK. The erasure is tied to him by registration number (07G1229E) in the public record, and the findings travel with his name: convictions for distributing and making indecent photographs of a child, an express finding that no mitigating features existed, and a conclusion that his fitness to practise is impaired on public protection and public interest grounds. Because he did not participate in the process, there is no evidence of insight or remediation, and the five-year minimum before erasure can be reviewed means the earliest possible return would still be years away.
The determination also fixes what it leaves unstated. It does not record where the offending took place, how it came to police attention, or the specifics of the images, whose nature, volume and categorisation the panel took from the court information and the judge’s sentencing remarks. What it does fix is the framework he now lives under: a suspended prison sentence, a sexual harm prevention order, sex offender notification requirements, and erasure from the register of his profession — reviewable in principle after five years, but otherwise indefinite.