William Russell Dunn

Introduction

William Russell Dunn is a former UK registered nurse (Nursing and Midwifery Council registration 79Y0573E) whose career ended with a striking-off order imposed by his professional regulator. On 3 September 2026, at the close of a substantive hearing that had run since 1 September, an NMC panel found his fitness to practise impaired because of sexually motivated misconduct towards a junior colleague and an offensive comment made to a patient’s wife, and it directed that he be struck off the register. A separate allegation concerning another patient was not proved. The determination is recorded by MedicWatch, an independent record of UK healthcare regulator decisions.

The conduct at the centre of the case occurred during a single shift in January 2020, in the course of a home visit, where Dunn worked alongside a more junior colleague. The panel found he told sexually explicit stories and made sexually explicit comments to that colleague, that the conduct was sexually motivated, and that he made an offensive remark to the wife of a patient receiving care. It concluded that his impairment was current on both public protection and public interest grounds, citing an absence of insight, remorse or remediation, and imposed the profession’s most severe sanction.

Background Information

The determination records his regulatory identity rather than his employment history: he was an NMC-registered nurse whose work took him into patients’ homes, and the case arose from his conduct during one such visit in January 2020. The junior colleague he worked with that day is identified in the record as Colleague A. Alongside her, the other person whose treatment featured in the charges was the wife of a patient, referred to as Patient A’s wife; a third person, Patient B, was the subject of the allegation that was ultimately not proved.

The charges the NMC brought against Dunn fell into three strands. The first concerned his conduct towards Colleague A during the January 2020 home visit, where he was alleged to have told sexually explicit stories and made sexually explicit comments. The second concerned sexual motivation as an aspect of that conduct. The third concerned patients’ families: an offensive remark to a patient’s wife, and an alleged question to another patient, Patient B, about sexual gratification.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

Adjudicated vs. alleged. The findings against William Russell Dunn were made on the balance of probabilities by an NMC fitness to practise panel and are regulatory findings, not criminal convictions; charge 5, the alleged question to Patient B, was not proved.

Before the panel, charges 1 to 4 were proved, along with charge 6 in relation to charge 4. On those findings the panel concluded that Dunn had engaged in sexually motivated misconduct towards a junior colleague, and that he had made an offensive comment towards a patient’s wife that breached professional boundaries. The sexually explicit stories and comments related during the January 2020 home visit were found to have been sexually motivated — a finding aimed squarely at the boundary between professional care and personal interest.

Charge 5, which alleged that Dunn had put a question to Patient B concerning sexual gratification, was not proved, and nothing was found against him on that allegation. The striking-off direction rests on the proved findings concerning Colleague A and Patient A’s wife, not on the unproved charge.

The panel went on to find that Dunn’s fitness to practise was currently impaired on both public protection and public interest grounds. In reaching that conclusion it cited the absence of any evidence of insight, remorse or remediation. Dunn did not attend to answer the case against him — his failure to attend a Fitness to Practice hearing without explanation was itself listed among the aggravating factors — so the panel determined the matter on the material before it.

Public Reaction and Consequences

The sanction the panel chose was erasure: it directed that Dunn be struck off the register, removing him from the profession altogether. The direction was accompanied by a separate order imposed to hold the position in place in the meantime — an 18-month interim suspension covering the appeal period — so that he could not simply continue practising while any appeal ran its course.

In explaining why erasure rather than a lesser order was warranted, the panel identified aggravating factors: absence of insight; abuse of a position of trust; conduct which deliberately or recklessly put a vulnerable person receiving care at risk of suffering harm; failure to work collaboratively with colleagues; deliberate breaches of the Code; the unexplained failure to attend the hearing; “a persistent pattern of misconduct during one shift”; and misconduct towards two people, Colleague A and Patient A’s wife, who were vulnerable for different reasons. No mitigating factors are recorded in the determination.

Current Status

As of the decision date of 3 September 2026, Dunn stands struck off the NMC register — the outcome the regulator calls erasure — and is no longer permitted to practise as a nurse in the UK. Without an appeal, striking off takes effect 28 days after written service of the decision. In the interim, the panel separately imposed an 18-month suspension to run during the appeal period.

The determination notes that the official register is the place to check a practitioner’s current registration status, and that the decision explains when the direction takes effect and any appeal provisions. The public record discloses no appeal having been lodged.

Impact on Their Career/Life

The striking-off order ends Dunn’s ability to work as a nurse in the United Kingdom. The findings he carries are of an unusual character: not a single isolated lapse but what the panel called a persistent pattern of misconduct compressed into one shift, directed at two vulnerable people — a junior colleague dependent on him professionally and the wife of a patient receiving care. Because the panel found no insight, remorse or remediation, and because he did not engage with the hearing, there is nothing on the record pointing towards rehabilitation.

What remains public is the regulator’s own account: a nurse who sexualised a home visit, breached professional boundaries with a patient’s wife, and then declined to appear and answer for it. That record now travels with his name and registration number in the permanent public archive of NMC decisions, independently documented by services such as MedicWatch for any employer, agency or member of the public who checks.

Sources

• MedicWatch, “NMC strikes off William Russell Dunn over sexual misconduct towards colleague,” 3 September 2026.source