[2023] UKUT 275 (AAC)

MM adopted his written statement and expanded on his evidence orally.

Under cross-examination by Mr Gray about his first offence, MM accepted that his victim was his patient, and that he rubbed the patient’s penis with his elbow while carrying out blood pressure checks. Mr Gray suggested that MM’s use of his elbow, rather than his hand, was designed to conceal what he was doing, giving him the opportunity to claim the touch to be accidental should he be challenged. MM denied this. MM said that he rubbed the patient’s penis with his elbow because he “wanted to give him pleasure”. He said that he had never thought about whether the patient consented.

Under cross-examination MM accepted that the offences occurred 8 years after he had completed his nursing training, and that he knew from his training that there was no situation in which it would be permitted for him to touch a patient sexually. His evidence was that at the time of his offences his sexual drive was such that the boundary between work and his sex life “blurred”, and while he was carrying out the assaults “that distinction went”.

When asked whether he believed that it was OK for a nurse to stimulate a patient sexually without consent he said that he did it “without thinking” and that “boundaries became blurred, and consent didn’t come into [his] mind”. He said that the boundary was “obvious with hindsight, but not at the time”.

MM insisted that, at the time that he committed his offences, his intent was to give pleasure to the patient, and the acts were not done for his own gratification. When it was put to him that it was highly improbable that a patient who was about to go into theatre for surgery would derive any pleasure from unsolicited sexual touching from a nurse in whom he had placed his trust, MM said that he honestly believed at the time that he would give pleasure. He said that he adopted a “passive role” in sexual relationships, and that “when you are ‘a passive’ it is more about giving pleasure to the other person”.

MM maintained that the sole driver for his offending was that he had reached a “stage of sexual excess” and his libido overwhelmed all other considerations at that time. When questioned about his reference in his statement to “desiring young men as they lay in their bed”, and whether he was attracted to the patients’ vulnerability, MM said it was purely about sexual attraction, and he denied enjoying the feeling of having power over patients in his nursing role. He said that “the power thing” was not “a concept [he] knew anything about”, and he had only become aware of it in the context of the recent press coverage of Philip Schofield’s relationship with a junior broadcasting colleague.

In terms of the circumstances of his offending, MM accepted that one victim was awaiting surgery at the time of the assault (which he said was “not major surgery”), and the other was on the ward. He couldn’t remember what the second victim was in hospital for but recalled that he was “not seriously ill”.

MM was questioned about the letter from one of his character references, which appeared to indicate that the referee was only aware of one of MM’s offences, and which referred to MM having said that he had “misread signals”. MM was asked whether he had minimised his offending to that referee. His evidence was that he had explained the circumstances to the referee openly and truthfully during the course of a quick telephone call, in which he had explained the DBS process and asked for a reference. He said the referee may not have had a full grasp of the situation due to his “clumsy words” and said that he hadn’t seen the reference before it was sent so he didn’t know what it said.

In terms of his “not guilty” pleas, MM said he did not immediately own up to the offences because he was frightened, and he wishes he had owned up at the beginning and had had an opportunity to apologise to his victims. He said he had had lots of time to reflect and had gained insight.

The panel questioned MM about what he had said about having had time to reflect and explore his feelings about his offending. MM said he had thought about it for the last 24 years and that it “never leaves you”.

He clarified that he had not undergone any sex offender training, any counselling, or any risk assessment, but he had engaged in self-reflection and conversations with his priest. MM referred to a Veronese painting, sometimes called ‘Respect’, which depicts a Roman soldier tempted by the sight of a sleeping woman. He said the soldier “didn’t go through with the sexual act because he had to respect the individual first”. He said his own offending had shown a total lack of respect for the individual, that it was “disgraceful”, and it “should never have happened”. He said he had learned lessons from the past, had considered the impact of his actions on the individuals he offended against, and that he now had respect for the individual, and he would be “doing the Lord’s work”.

When asked how the tribunal could be sure that he would not offend again, MM said he now suffered from Type II Diabetes and was taking Citalopram for his mental health. He said these factors had led to an 8 stone weight increase and to a diminution in his sex drive. He said he rarely got sexual urges now, and “in terms of wanting to do something about it”, he had only masturbated once in the past year. He said that, because he was now celibate, he “doesn’t really think about sex anymore”.

MM said he was “sickened and shocked” by his inclusion in the children’s barred list, as he could not understand how anyone could harm a child. He pointed out that his victims were both adults in their 30s and insisted that his sexual attraction was to adult males only.