Simon Robertson

Introduction

Simon Robertson is a community mental health nurse whose name now appears on the public record of the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) as erased from the register — what is commonly called being struck off. The removal followed a criminal conviction at Lincoln Crown Court for sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder by a care worker, an offence committed against a patient who was under his care. On 5 March 2026, an NMC Fitness to Practise Committee considered his case at a substantive hearing and, acting on a Consensual Panel Determination agreed between the NMC and Mr Robertson, directed that he be struck off the register. The decision date and the hearing start date are recorded as the same day, 5 March 2026. The case carries the NMC registration number 98C2409E and was added to the MedicWatch record of regulator determinations on 27 April 2026; MedicWatch states that it does not editorialise the regulator’s findings.

Background Information

The determination identifies Mr Robertson as a nurse working as a community mental health nurse at the time relevant to the proceedings. Community mental health work involves treating patients in their own homes and in sustained one-to-one contact with people living with mental disorder, which places the nurse in a position of significant trust. That trust is what the offence in this case was defined by: the charge of which he was convicted was sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder by a care worker, contrary to section 38(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 — an offence that exists specifically to protect people whose mental disorder makes them vulnerable in the care of those responsible for them. The patient involved is identified in the determination only as Patient A, described as “a community mental health patient under his care”.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

Adjudicated vs. alleged. Simon Robertson’s conviction is a matter of court record following his admission. The NMC panel’s findings of impairment rest on that conviction. Any conduct beyond the convicted offence remains unproven allegation.

The underlying incident took place during a home visit on 16 March 2022, when the conduct toward Patient A included “digital penetration during a home visit on 16 March 2022”. The criminal case concluded more than two years later, on 12 June 2024, when Mr Robertson was convicted at Lincoln Crown Court of sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder by a care worker. He was sentenced on 7 November 2024 to “18 months’ imprisonment, a 10-year restraining order, and 10 years on the Sex Offenders Register”. The regulator’s case was brought as a single charge, Charge 1, which recorded the conviction, the conduct it related to, and the sentence imposed. That charge was found proved “by way of his admission” — Mr Robertson admitted it as part of the agreed determination. The panel accepted the Consensual Panel Determination agreed between the NMC and Mr Robertson and determined that his fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of his conviction on both public protection and public interest grounds, with limbs (a), (b) and (c) of the Grant test engaged.

In setting out its assessment, the panel recorded the aggravating factors: a conviction for a serious criminal sexual offence; “abuse of a position of trust in that Mr Robertson was providing care to Patient A at the time”; “psychological and emotional harm caused to Patient A”; and “premeditated behaviour towards Patient A”. The mitigating factor recorded is single and limited: Mr Robertson “admitted the criminal charge and that his fitness to practise is impaired by reason of his conviction”. Beyond that admission, the public record identifies nothing offered or accepted in mitigation.

Public Reaction and Consequences

The consequences of the case ran on two tracks. The criminal court imposed imprisonment, a ten-year restraining order, and ten years on the Sex Offenders Register. The professional regulator then imposed its own outcome on 5 March 2026: the panel directed a striking-off order, agreeing with the Consensual Panel Determination that “no lesser sanction would be sufficient given the seriousness of a specified criminal sexual offence committed against a patient in his care”. An 18-month interim suspension order was imposed at the same time “to cover the appeal period”. Because the outcome was reached by consent rather than contest, there is no disputed factual narrative to weigh against the regulator’s account: the panel accepted the agreement as presented. The record was published by the NMC and republished by MedicWatch in April 2026, making the conviction, the sentence, and the striking-off a single connected public record.

Current Status

Simon Robertson is erased from the NMC register and is no longer permitted to practise as a nurse in the UK. The regulator’s own explainer of what this means states that being struck off “removes the practitioner from the register. They are no longer permitted to practise this profession in the UK.” It adds that erasure “can be reviewed after a minimum of five years, but is otherwise indefinite”. The striking-off order took effect alongside an 18-month interim suspension order covering the appeal period. No appeal, review, or reinstatement is recorded on the public document; the determination of 5 March 2026 is the last recorded event, and this page can state no more than it shows.

Impact on Their Career/Life

The striking-off order ends the nursing career recorded on the register. The panel agreed that no lesser sanction would be sufficient for a specified criminal sexual offence committed against a patient in his care, which means any return to practise would require a successful review after a minimum of five years — and the record gives no indication that one is sought. The criminal sentence carries its own continuing effects, separate from registration: the ten-year restraining order and the ten-year Sex Offenders Register requirement both date from the November 2024 sentencing and extend well past the regulator’s decision. The determination also records, in the panel’s findings, the harm to the person at the centre of the case — psychological and emotional harm caused to Patient A, and premeditated behaviour toward her. For a nurse whose role was caring for patients in their own homes, the findings strike at the defining duty of that role, and the regulator agreed that nothing short of removal sufficed. What the public record does not document — his circumstances after March 2026, or anything of the appeal window — this page leaves unstated.