Nursing and Midwifery Council determination — substantive hearing

NMC panel strikes off nurse Steven Wenman over sexual misconduct and bullying

A Nursing and Midwifery Council panel has struck nurse Steven David Wenman from the register, finding he sent suggestive messages to one colleague, made comments of a sexual nature to two others and bullied a third. The panel found he had shown very limited insight.

MedicWatch editorial · Published 17 August 2026 · Updated 1 September 2026

Erasure (struck off the register)

Added to MedicWatch: 31 August 2026Report a correction

What does “struck off the register” mean?

Being struck off (the regulator calls this "erasure") removes the practitioner from the register. They are no longer permitted to practise this profession in the UK. Erasure can be reviewed after a minimum of five years, but is otherwise indefinite.

Concerning Steven David Wenman, nurse (Nursing and Midwifery Council 07H2833E).

Decision date: 17 August 2026 · Hearing started 3 August 2026 and ended 17 August 2026

In plain English

The NMC found that Steven David Wenman, a registered nurse, sent suggestive messages to one colleague, made comments of a sexual nature to two others, and ignored a third colleague in conduct the panel found amounted to bullying. The panel found his fitness to practise impaired by misconduct, noting very limited insight and minimal remediation, and imposed a striking-off order together with an 18-month interim suspension order.

Charges

Seventeen charges arose from Mr Wenman’s employment as a deputy manager at Alexandra Care Home and later at Nightingale Care Home. The panel found proved that between 7 July and 9 September 2023 he sent Colleague A messages that were suggestive and/or flirtatious; that on 14 September 2023 he said of her “She is like my daughter only my daughter doesn’t have face piercings thankfully”; 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, amounting to sexual harassment 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. Charges 1a, 4a, 4b, 4d and 5 were not proved. The NMC offered no evidence on charges 3, 6, 7 and 8. There was no case to answer on charges 4c and 15c.

Findings

The panel found that Mr 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 charges found proved as very serious, noting sexual misconduct across two workplaces and a disparity in seniority between Mr 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 considered and rejected taking no action, a caution order, a conditions of practice order and a suspension order in turn, concluding there was no realistic prospect that Mr Wenman would gain insight after a period of suspension, particularly as he had been unequivocal that he did not wish to return to nursing. The panel acknowledged that, prior to these concerns arising, Mr Wenman had in its words an unblemished career and that no clinical concerns had been raised about his practice. 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.

Mitigating factors

The panel took into account the following mitigating features: 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.

Aggravating factors

The panel took into account the following aggravating features: a pattern of misconduct over a period of time, involving several colleagues and across two workplaces; an escalation in behaviour towards Colleague C; sexual misconduct and a breach of professional boundaries; bullying conduct towards Colleague B; failure to work collaboratively with colleagues; failed 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.

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.