Mark James Rebustes

Introduction

Mark James Rebustes is a former UK nurse whose registration with the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) was erased — struck off the register — on 22 July 2026, after the regulator’s Fitness to Practise Committee found his fitness to practise impaired by reason of his convictions. In May 2025 he was convicted at Dundee Sheriff Court of taking or making, and of possessing, indecent photographs of children, with the offending spanning the period between 31 July 2019 and 24 May 2023. The panel found the convictions very serious, noted that he had disengaged entirely from the regulatory process and shown no insight or remorse, and imposed the most serious sanction available to it: a striking-off order, with an 18-month interim suspension order.

Background Information

Rebustes was a registered nurse with the NMC, identified in the determination by PIN 19J0913O. The case against him was a conviction case rather than a clinical-misconduct case: the sole charge before the panel was his conviction on 9 May 2025 at Dundee Sheriff Court of two offences under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 — taking or permitting to be taken, or making, indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children, contrary to section 52(1)(a) as amended, and possessing such material, contrary to the same Act — in each case on occasions between 31 July 2019 and 24 May 2023. He was sentenced on 17 June 2025 to a Community Payback Order with an unpaid work requirement of 300 hours, imposed concurrently. The determination does not name his employer and does not describe his clinical career; the case, as published, rests on the court record.

As general context: offences under section 52 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 concern indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children — pseudo-photographs being images that appear to be photographs — and the offences cover taking or making such images as well as possessing them. Conviction-based fitness to practise cases follow a distinct procedural route: under Rule 31 of the NMC’s rules, an extract conviction report from the criminal court stands as proof, so the panel does not re-hear the criminal evidence. It treats the conviction as established and decides what it means for fitness to practise.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

Adjudicated. Rebustes was convicted at Dundee Sheriff Court on 9 May 2025 of offences concerning indecent photographs of children, and the conviction is a matter of court record. The NMC panel’s findings on his fitness to practise are regulatory conclusions drawn from that conviction; the panel itself noted the offences were not directly related to his clinical practice.

The convictions were recorded on 9 May 2025 at Dundee Sheriff Court. The first offence was that, on occasions between 31 July 2019 and 24 May 2023, he did take or permit to be taken or make indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children, contrary to section 52(1)(a) of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 as amended. The second was that, on various occasions over the same period, he did have indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children in his possession, contrary to the same Act. He was sentenced on 17 June 2025 to a Community Payback Order with an unpaid work and other activity requirement of 300 hours, the sentence being imposed concurrently. This page does not describe the images themselves; neither does the published determination.

Before the NMC, the panel found the facts proved in accordance with Rule 31(2) and (3) on the basis of the extract conviction report. It determined that his behaviour breached sections 20.1, 20.3 and 20.4 of the Code, and that the convictions were very serious: although not directly related to his clinical practice and patient care, they brought the nursing profession into disrepute and constituted serious breaches of its fundamental tenets.

Public Reaction and Consequences

The panel found impairment on both public protection and public interest grounds. It found he had disengaged entirely from the regulatory process, had provided no evidence of insight or remorse and no evidence of steps to strengthen his practice, and that there was a risk of repetition. At the sanction stage it determined that the case fell within the NMC’s definition of a highest risk case, and that his actions were “fundamentally incompatible with remaining on the register”. It imposed a striking-off order, together with an interim suspension order for 18 months to cover the appeal period.

On mitigation and aggravation, the panel considered that there were “no mitigating features in this case”. The aggravating features it took into account were deliberate breaches of the Code; failure to attend hearings, or to engage in the Fitness to Practise process, without good reason; absence of or limited insight; and that the offence involves vulnerable children. The decision was issued on 22 July 2026, the same day the hearing began — a single-day hearing conducted without the registrant’s participation.

Current Status

Rebustes is struck off the NMC register. Erasure removes him from the register entirely: he is no longer permitted to practise as a nurse in the United Kingdom. The striking-off order can be reviewed after a minimum of five years, but is otherwise indefinite. In the meantime, the 18-month interim suspension order covers the period in which he may appeal the decision of 22 July 2026. The criminal-court outcome — the Community Payback Order with its 300-hour unpaid work requirement imposed on 17 June 2025 — runs separately from the regulatory sanction.

Impact on Their Career/Life

The striking-off order ends Rebustes’s ability to work as a registered nurse in the United Kingdom. Because this was a conviction case, no findings about his clinical skills were needed to justify removal: the panel located the case in what the convictions said about his character and the profession’s standing, concluding that the offences, while outside his clinical practice, struck at the fundamental tenets of nursing. His complete disengagement from the process shaped the outcome — the panel cited his non-attendance as an aggravating feature and found no evidence of insight, remorse or remediation, and no mitigating features at all. Any return is, at the earliest, a matter for review after five years; the default is that erasure is permanent.