Steven David Wenman

Introduction

Steven David Wenman is a registered nurse who practised in the United Kingdom under registration number 07H2833E with the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC), and who served as deputy manager of Alexandra Care Home and later of Nightingale Care Home. On 17 August 2026, at the conclusion of a substantive hearing that had begun on 3 August 2026, an NMC panel found his fitness to practise impaired by misconduct and directed that he be struck off the register, imposing an 18-month interim suspension order to cover the appeal period. The panel found he sent suggestive messages to one colleague, made comments of a sexual nature to two others and bullied a third, and that he had shown very limited insight.

Background Information

The published determination records little of Wenman’s personal or professional history beyond the roles that framed the case. It records that the seventeen charges before the panel arose from his employment as a deputy manager at Alexandra Care Home and later at Nightingale Care Home, and that the conduct found proved took place between July and September 2023. The panel acknowledged that, prior to these concerns arising, Wenman had what it described as an “unblemished career” and that no clinical concerns had been raised about his practice — a factor it weighed at the sanction stage, though it did not allow it to displace the seriousness of the misconduct findings.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

Allegations vs. findings. The findings are regulatory findings by the NMC Fitness to Practise Committee on the civil standard (the balance of probabilities). No criminal conviction is recorded in the determination.

The panel found proved that between 7 July and 9 September 2023 Wenman sent Colleague A messages that were suggestive and/or flirtatious, and that on 14 September 2023 he said of her: “She is like my daughter only my daughter doesn’t have face piercings thankfully”. It found proved that he ignored Colleague B on one or more occasions and that this amounted to bullying; that he sent and made sexual comments to Colleague C which amounted to sexual harassment — conduct that was unwanted, of a sexual nature and had the effect of violating her dignity; and that a comment made to Colleague D was inappropriate and sexual in nature.

Not every allegation succeeded. Charges 1a, 4a, 4b, 4d and 5 were not proved. The NMC offered no evidence on charges 3, 6, 7 and 8, and there was no case to answer on charges 4c and 15c.

On the charges that were found proved, the panel determined that Wenman’s conduct amounted to misconduct and that his fitness to practise is currently impaired on both public protection and public interest grounds. At the sanction stage it described the proved charges as very serious, noting sexual misconduct across two workplaces and a disparity in seniority between Wenman and the colleagues concerned. It found he had failed to demonstrate meaningful insight or reflection and had taken no adequate steps to strengthen his practice, which it regarded as evidence of deep-seated attitudinal concerns.

The panel’s mitigating record comprised early admission to some of the facts, some evidence of personal stress at the time of the incidents, and apologies and remorse towards those affected. Its aggravating record was longer: a pattern of misconduct over a period of time involving several colleagues and two workplaces; an escalation in behaviour towards Colleague C; sexual misconduct and a breach of professional boundaries; bullying conduct towards Colleague B; a failure to work collaboratively with colleagues; failure to comply with policy and procedures at Nightingales; disparity in seniority and a failure to meet the expectations of a leadership position; and very limited insight, minimal remediation and an absence of reflection.

Public Reaction and Consequences

The panel considered and rejected, in turn, taking no action, a caution order, a conditions of practice order and a suspension order, concluding there was no realistic prospect that Wenman would gain insight after a period of suspension — particularly as he had been unequivocal that he did not wish to return to nursing. It determined that a striking-off order was the appropriate and proportionate sanction, and imposed an interim suspension order for 18 months to cover the 28-day appeal period. The determination records the regulator’s findings rather than press coverage or public commentary, and no public statements by Wenman are recorded in it.

Current Status

As determined on 17 August 2026, Steven David Wenman is struck off the NMC register, with an 18-month interim suspension order in force covering the appeal period. Striking off removes a practitioner from the register so that they are no longer permitted to practise the profession in the UK; erasure is otherwise indefinite, subject only to any application for restoration the regulator may allow. Unless such an application were to change the outcome, Wenman cannot work as a registered nurse in the United Kingdom.

Impact on Their Career/Life

The striking-off order ends Wenman’s ability to practise as a nurse in the UK, closing a sequence that ran from the messages and comments found proved across two care homes in 2023 to removal from the register in August 2026. The panel’s route to erasure turned on what it found missing: meaningful insight, reflection and remediation — the very limited insight, minimal remediation and absence of reflection it treated as evidence of deep-seated attitudinal concerns, compounded by his stated wish not to return to nursing, which removed any realistic prospect that a suspension would lead to safe future practice. The acknowledged unblemished career and absence of clinical concerns did not alter the conclusion, given the seriousness of the sexual misconduct findings, the escalation towards Colleague C, and the seniority disparity between Wenman and the colleagues affected.

Sources

• MedicWatch, “NMC panel strikes off nurse Steven Wenman over sexual misconduct and bullying”, 17 August 2026. source