Sarah-Jane Swift
Introduction
Sarah-Jane Swift is a former UK registered mental health nurse (Nursing and Midwifery Council registration 79J0230E) who was struck off the NMC register on 17 April 2026 after a Fitness to Practise Committee found that she had sexually harassed a vulnerable colleague at work. The panel found that on 13 April 2022, knowing that Colleague A was vulnerable by virtue of his disability and/or health, Swift placed her hands under his top without his consent and rubbed her hands on his bare chest during a workplace incident. It found the conduct was unwanted and sexual in nature, and that it harassed Colleague A by violating his dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating and offensive environment. Finding her fitness to practise currently impaired on grounds of public protection and the public interest, and weighing her limited insight, her failure to engage with the regulatory process and the absence of any evidence of remediation, the committee imposed the most serious sanction available to it — a striking-off order — accompanied by an 18-month interim suspension order covering the appeal period.
Background Information
The public record on Swift’s professional standing is thin: MedicWatch’s practitioner profile records only that she was a nurse on the NMC register under number 79J0230E, that her specialty was mental health nursing, and that her most recent published regulatory outcome was erasure — struck off the register — decided on 17 April 2026. The profile notes its own registration-status check as not yet verified and directs readers to the official NMC register for current registration details.
The NMC brought the case to a substantive hearing of its Fitness to Practise Committee which began on 16 April 2026 and ended on 17 April 2026, with the decision dated 17 April 2026. The conduct that ended her career had occurred four years earlier, on 13 April 2022, and involved a colleague — identified in the determination as Colleague A — rather than a patient.
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Adjudicated vs. alleged. What follows are findings of the NMC’s Fitness to Practise Committee, made on the balance of probabilities in regulatory proceedings — not criminal convictions. Charge 2b, which related to a protected characteristic, was found not proved; the remaining charges listed here were found proved, and nothing on this page rests on an unproven allegation.
The committee found proved that on 13 April 2022 Swift: (1a) knew that Colleague A was vulnerable by virtue of his disability and/or health; (1b) placed her hands under Colleague A’s top without his consent; and (1c) rubbed her hands on Colleague A’s bare chest without his consent.
On the harassment charges — 2a, 2c, 2d(i) and 2d(ii) — the panel found proved that the conduct harassed Colleague A in that it was unwanted, sexual in nature, and had the effect of violating his dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating and offensive environment. Charge 2b, which related to a protected characteristic, was found not proved.
The committee held that the proved facts amounted to misconduct and recorded breaches of the NMC Code at sections 1.1, 20.1, 20.2, 20.3, 20.5 and 20.8 — within the Code’s over-arching requirements to prioritise people and to promote professionalism and trust. It found that Colleague A was caused psychological and emotional harm, and that Swift’s fitness to practise was currently impaired on both public protection and public interest grounds.
On sanction, the panel credited one mitigating factor: an apology had been made to Colleague A. Against that it set a heavier list of aggravating factors: abuse of a position of power; conduct which placed a vulnerable colleague at risk of harm; conduct that caused significant psychological and emotional harm to Colleague A; failure to engage in the Fitness to Practise process, without good reason; and absence of insight. The panel noted Swift’s limited insight, her lack of engagement with the NMC process, the absence of any evidence of remediation, and a stated intention not to engage further with the NMC or with nursing.
Public Reaction and Consequences
The determination was published as a regulator’s decision rather than a news controversy, and the public reaction on record is the panel’s own: the committee concluded that Swift’s fitness to practise was impaired and that the protection of the public and the public interest required erasure — the imposition of a striking-off order on 17 April 2026. An interim suspension order of 18 months was also imposed to cover the appeal period.
The outcome now forms part of the permanent public record of NMC fitness to practise decisions. MedicWatch, an independent record service that aggregates the published decisions of UK healthcare regulators, added the case on 26 April 2026, listing it as erasure — struck off the register — decided 17 April 2026 at a substantive hearing that ran from 16 to 17 April 2026, and maintains a practitioner profile recording her specialty as mental health nursing. For any employer, agency or member of the public who checks her name or PIN against the register, the erasure and the findings behind it are what appears.
Current Status
As of the decision date of 17 April 2026, Swift stands struck off the NMC register, meaning she is no longer permitted to practise as a registered nurse in the United Kingdom. The striking-off order is accompanied by an 18-month interim suspension order covering the appeal period, and the decision explains when the direction takes effect and the appeal provisions. Erasure can be reviewed after a minimum of five years but is otherwise indefinite. The official NMC register remains the authoritative source for her current registration status; MedicWatch’s profile notes its own check as not yet verified and points readers to the register.
Impact on Their Career/Life
The striking-off order ends Swift’s career as a registered nurse in the UK: erasure removes her from the register entirely, so she cannot work in any role requiring NMC registration. The panel’s assessment made an early return improbable — it found limited insight, no engagement with the NMC process, no evidence of remediation, and recorded her stated intention not to engage further with the NMC or with nursing. Because the proven conduct was directed at a colleague rather than a patient, the findings also carry a workplace dimension beyond nursing: the public determination permanently associates her name and NMC PIN 79J0230E with the finding that she touched a vulnerable male colleague’s bare chest without consent and sexually harassed him. The published record discloses no other professional role or consequence beyond the erasure itself.