Nursing and Midwifery Council determination — substantive hearing

NMC cautions nurse Joel Mutombo over sexualised ward culture he failed to challenge

A Nursing and Midwifery Council panel has imposed a two-year caution order on mental health nurse Joel Kalombo Mutombo, finding the Band 6 charge nurse failed to challenge a sexualised culture on his ward and sent sexualised messages to a junior colleague. It found him safe to practise.

MedicWatch editorial · Published 30 July 2026 · Updated 18 August 2026

Warning (formally warned) — 2 years

Added to MedicWatch: 17 August 2026Report a correction

What does “formally warned” mean?

A formal warning is a note on the practitioner's record. It does not restrict practice but tells the public that the regulator considered the conduct to have fallen below expected standards.

Concerning Joel Kalombo Mutombo, nurse (Nursing and Midwifery Council 12K0150E).

Decision date: 30 July 2026 · Hearing started 8 August 2025 and ended 30 July 2026

In plain English

The NMC's Fitness to Practise Committee found that Joel Kalombo Mutombo, a Band 6 charge nurse, failed to provide appropriate leadership and took no adequate action to limit sexualised conversations on his ward. It also found he sent sexualised messages to a junior colleague. The panel found several other charges not proved. It decided his fitness to practise was impaired on public interest grounds only, judging him a safe and effective practitioner, and imposed a caution order for two years.

Charges

That he, being a Charge Nurse, Band 6: 1. failed to provide appropriate leadership to his ward staff members (proved); 2. encouraged and/or permitted a culture on the ward of inappropriate and sexualised conversations and conduct, including (a) regularly discussing his own sexual preferences and/or those of his partners (not proved), (b) regularly making sexual jokes and/or comments (not proved), (c) taking no, or no adequate, action to limit sexualised conversations amongst other staff members (proved), (d) on a date unknown permitting and/or failing to prevent Colleague 1 from kneeling between or near his legs to retrieve a key from his belt in a manner to mimic a sexual act (proved), and (e) failing to intervene when Colleagues 1 and 2 were showing each other their bare nipples in the nurses' station, instead saying words to the effect of 'Can I have a look?' (not proved); 3. making unwanted sexual advances to Colleague 3 at a work-related party (no case to answer); 4. sending Colleague 3, a Band 3 colleague, inappropriate, sexualised social media messages at 4(a), 4(b) and 4(c) (all proved); 5. that his acts at charges 2, 3 and 4 were sexually motivated in that he sought or derived sexual gratification (not proved); 6. that his acts at charges 3 and 4 were an abuse of his position towards a more junior colleague (not proved); and 7. that his acts constituted harassment (no case to answer).

Findings

The panel found no case to answer on charges 3 and 7, found charges 1, 2c, 2d, 4a, 4b and 4c proved, and found charges 2a, 2b, 2e, 5 and 6 not proved. It did not admit Colleague 3's hearsay evidence, finding the NMC had taken insufficient steps to secure her attendance. On charge 1 it found that, as a Band 6 Charge Nurse, he was under a duty to provide leadership across the ward and that by ignoring rumours and speculation for fear of causing conflict he allowed an inappropriate sexualised culture to continue. On charge 4 it found the messages went beyond what was appropriate between a senior and junior colleague and were sexualised, but on charges 5 and 6 found insufficient evidence of sexual gratification or abuse of position. The panel found the facts proved amounted to misconduct, breaching Code standards 1.1, 20.3, 20.8 and 20.10. Applying Cohen, it found the misconduct capable of being addressed and sufficiently addressed, accepting his reflection, remorse, relevant training and some eight years of practice without further concerns, and concluded repetition was highly unlikely. It therefore found his fitness to practise not impaired on public protection grounds, but impaired on public interest grounds only, because allowing a sexualised culture to continue and breaching professional boundaries were fundamental breaches of professional standards that could not go unmarked. It imposed a caution order for two years, finding the misconduct moderately serious and a suspension order disproportionate.

Mitigating factors

He demonstrated remorse and offered apologies in his reflection to those affected by his behaviour; he has completed training courses relevant to the concerns; he has addressed the concerns, reflected and shown sufficient insight into his misconduct; and he has worked safely and professionally in nursing roles for some eight years since the events causing the concern.

Aggravating factors

His misconduct comprised repeated failings of leadership in the context of a sexualised culture; and his misconduct occurred in a ward environment providing care to vulnerable patients.

Source

All facts on this page are drawn from the publicly published Nursing and Midwifery Council determination linked below. MedicWatch does not editorialise the regulator’s findings.

Spot something incorrect?

If a fact on this page is wrong, or you believe the page should not be published, please submit a correction or takedown request.