Jerry Barrozo

Introduction

Jerry Barrozo is a former UK registered adult nurse from St Martin in Guernsey (Nursing and Midwifery Council registration 02B1770O) whose career ended in erasure from the professional register. On 23 March 2026 the NMC’s Fitness to Practise Committee imposed a striking-off order on him after finding that he “failed to cooperate with a criminal investigation into allegations of theft of medication and other medical supplies from his workplace”. The charge that was proved was the non-cooperation — missing a scheduled surrender to police custody and leaving his home for an unknown whereabouts — not any theft, which remains only an allegation. The panel concluded no lesser sanction would protect the public, and it added an 18-month interim suspension order pending appeal. The determination is documented by MedicWatch, an independent record of UK healthcare regulator decisions.

Background Information

The record identifies Barrozo as “a registered adult nurse from St Martin, Guernsey” and carries his registration number, 02B1770O; it does not name his employer or describe his workplace beyond that. Nothing in it speaks to his age, training or length of service. What it fixes precisely is the chronology. On or about 12 July 2024 he “left his home in Guernsey to an unknown whereabouts”. On 4 September 2024 he “did not surrender himself to custody at Guernsey Police Headquarters at 10:00am in accordance with his bail conditions” — the date this page carries, and the central proved incident. The case was decided at a substantive hearing that both began and ended on 23 March 2026, the decision issued the same day the hearing started.

The record is silent on everything that followed the missed surrender: it does not say whether he was later located, what became of the underlying criminal investigation, or whether he took any part in the regulatory proceedings. The panel noted only his “disengagement”.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

Adjudicated vs. alleged. The charge proved against Jerry Barrozo by the NMC Fitness to Practise Committee — failing to cooperate with a criminal investigation — was a regulatory finding on the civil standard, never adjudicated in court. The suspected theft underlying that investigation remains an allegation; the record states no criminal conviction for theft.

The single charge against him sits entirely on that line. It alleges that, “as a registered nurse, Mr Barrozo failed to cooperate with a criminal investigation into allegations of theft of medication and other medical supplies from his workplace in that, on 4 September 2024, he did not surrender himself to custody at Guernsey Police Headquarters at 10:00am in accordance with his bail conditions, and on or about 12 July 2024 he left his home in Guernsey to an unknown whereabouts”. The outcome line reads: “Charges 1a and 1b proved.” The investigation concerned suspected theft, but the theft itself was never adjudicated anywhere on this record; what was proved was the breach of bail and the departure from home.

On that basis, “The panel found Mr Barrozo’s fitness to practise impaired by reason of his misconduct.” It concluded the conduct involved “an abuse of his position of trust, deliberate breaches of the Code, and a pattern of misconduct over a period of time”, and that “no lesser sanction would protect the public or maintain confidence in the profession given the seriousness of the misconduct and his disengagement”.

The mitigation the panel credited was thin — a single line: “No reported patient harm.” Against it stood a longer aggravating list: “Abuse of a position of trust”; “Conduct which deliberately or recklessly puts people receiving care at risk of suffering harm”; “Deliberate breaches of the Code”; and “A pattern of misconduct over a period of time”.

Public Reaction and Consequences

This was not a public controversy in the ordinary sense, and the record does not pretend otherwise: it contains no press coverage, no employer statement and no comment from Barrozo. What it documents is regulatory consequence. The striking-off order removed him from the NMC register, ending his ability to work as a nurse in the UK, and the findings now form part of the permanent public record of NMC decisions, indexed against his name and his registration number. The immediate practical effect was cushioned only by procedure: because the striking-off carries a right of appeal, an interim suspension order of 18 months was imposed pending appeal, so he is suspended rather than erased while that window runs.

Current Status

As of the decision date of 23 March 2026, Barrozo stands struck off the register — the outcome the regulator calls erasure. Per the determination’s own explainer, being struck off “removes the practitioner from the register”, and the person struck off is “no longer permitted to practise this profession in the UK”. Erasure, the explainer continues, “can be reviewed after a minimum of five years, but is otherwise indefinite” — which places the earliest possible review no earlier than 2031.

The record goes no further. It does not record any appeal, restoration application or employment since the decision, and — importantly — it does not state the outcome of the criminal investigation into the alleged theft. What it records is the panel’s judgment that “no lesser sanction would protect the public or maintain confidence in the profession”. Until any future review, the striking-off stands as the operative outcome.

Impact on Their Career/Life

The erasure ends Barrozo’s nursing career in the UK. He cannot work in any role that requires NMC registration, and the findings at the core of the case — the missed surrender to custody, the departure from his home to an unknown whereabouts, and the panel’s conclusions about trust, the Code and a pattern of misconduct — are recorded against his registration number permanently.

The panel’s own reasoning is the best measure of the impact. It had only one mitigating factor to weigh — that no patient harm was reported — against an abuse of trust, deliberate breaches of the Code, risk to people receiving care, and a pattern of misconduct, compounded by a disengagement so complete that he neither surrendered as required nor engaged with the case. The five-year minimum before erasure can be reviewed means even the earliest possible return lies years away. What remains public is the committee’s account: a nurse who failed to answer bail in a theft investigation and had left his home for an unknown whereabouts — and who lost his profession for that non-cooperation, while the theft itself remains, on the record, an allegation.