David Robson
Introduction
David Robson is a former registered nurse whose career ended on 1 July 2026, when a panel of the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) imposed a striking-off order after he was convicted of distributing and making indecent photographs of a child. The panel found his fitness to practise currently impaired by reason of his convictions and determined that erasure from the register — the most severe sanction available to it — was the necessary outcome, both to protect the public and in the wider public interest.
The case was unusual chiefly in its course: Robson did not attend the NMC proceedings or engage with the regulator’s process, so the panel determined the matter in his absence, resting its findings on his criminal convictions. The offending lay at the serious end of child-safeguarding cases that come before the nursing regulator.
Background Information
Robson was a registered nurse, regulated by the NMC, the statutory body that maintains the register of nurses and midwives in the United Kingdom and disciplines those who fall below the standards the register represents. Details of his employment history, workplace and length of service are not set out in the published determination, which records the regulatory outcome rather than his career before the criminal proceedings.
What the record does establish is the criminal conduct that brought him before the regulator. On 14 February 2025, Robson was convicted at Teesside Magistrates’ Court of three offences under the Protection of Children Act 1978 relating to indecent images of children — one count involving distribution, and two counts involving the making of such images. Those convictions, and the sentence imposed for them, formed the entire factual foundation of the NMC’s fitness-to-practise case against him.
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Adjudicated vs. alleged. Robson’s convictions on all three counts were proved before the NMC panel by certificate of conviction and are matters of court record; the criminal court’s sentence stands. No count resulted in acquittal, so no part of the offending described here is an unproven allegation. The panel’s conclusions about his insight and engagement are regulatory findings, not court findings.
The conduct that ended Robson’s nursing career was proved in the criminal courts. At Teesside Magistrates’ Court on 14 February 2025, he was convicted of: distributing an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child, contrary to section 1(1)(b) and section 6 of the Protection of Children Act 1978; and, on two further counts, making indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of a child, contrary to section 1(1)(a) and section 6 of the same Act. All three convictions are matters of court record, and the criminal court’s sentence — a suspended prison sentence, together with a sexual harm prevention order and sex offender notification requirements, to which he remains subject — stands.
When the matter reached the NMC, the regulatory task was to assess what those convictions meant for his fitness to practise. The panel considered the case at a hearing Robson did not attend, and it found that he had failed to attend the hearings or otherwise engage with the fitness-to-practise process without good reason. Applying the applicable rules, the panel treated his certificate of conviction as conclusive proof of the underlying facts: under Rule 31, all facts were found proved on the basis of the convictions. No part of the offending was contested or re-litigated before the panel; there was nothing to re-litigate, because there had been no acquittal on any count.
In assessing current impairment, the panel weighed the gravity of the offending itself, noting the abuse of children involved and “the nature, volume and categorisation of the images as set out in the court information and the judge’s sentencing remarks”. It concluded that Robson’s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of his convictions, on both public protection and public interest grounds. The panel identified no mitigating features, found no evidence of developed insight, and recorded his failure to attend or engage. Those are regulatory findings about insight and engagement, distinct from the criminal findings, but they pointed the panel toward the most serious end of its sanctions range.
Public Reaction and Consequences
The consequence within the profession was definitive. On 1 July 2026 the panel imposed a striking-off order, erasing Robson’s name from the NMC register. The panel determined that nothing short of erasure would suffice: a registered nurse with convictions for distributing and making indecent images of children, who had shown no insight and had declined to engage, could not remain on the register under any lesser outcome. The determination records the decision as resting on public protection and the public interest in maintaining confidence in the profession and upholding proper standards.
An immediate practical consequence followed for the appeal window: an interim suspension order covers the appeal period, so Robson’s registration is suspended in the interim even as the striking-off order takes its course. The criminal consequences ran in parallel and independently of the regulatory outcome — the suspended sentence, the sexual harm prevention order and the sex offender notification requirements imposed by the court remain in force, and he remains subject to them.
Current Status
As of the determination dated 1 July 2026, David Robson has been struck off the NMC register and is not a registered nurse. An interim suspension order covers the appeal period following the striking-off decision. Whether he has appealed is not stated in the published determination. On the criminal side, he remains subject to the sentence imposed at Teesside Magistrates’ Court: a suspended prison sentence, a sexual harm prevention order, and sex offender notification requirements.
Impact on Their Career/Life
The striking-off order removes Robson from the register of nurses permanently unless a competent decision is ever made to restore him — an outcome the panel’s findings give no reason to expect, given its identification of no mitigating features and no developed insight. His nursing career is over: erasure means he cannot work as a registered nurse in the United Kingdom. Combined with the criminal court’s disposals, which remain in force, the case records a professional cancellation that was complete before the regulatory process began: the convictions themselves carried consequences no panel could moderate, and the panel’s role was to ensure the register reflected them.