PETER DUNCAN FROM SURBITON STRUCK OFF OVER CHILD PORNOGRAPHY CASE IN HAMPSHIRE

In a significant development within the medical and legal communities, Peter Duncan, a former nurse residing in Surbiton, has been permanently removed from the professional register following his guilty plea to charges related to the possession and download of child pornography. The case, which has garnered considerable attention, underscores the serious consequences of such offenses and the breach of trust inherent in the nursing profession.

Peter Duncan, aged 45 and originally from Berrylands, was convicted and served a six-month prison sentence in October 2004 for his involvement in this disturbing activity. The recent disciplinary hearing, conducted by the National Midwifery Council (NMC) at a committee meeting last Friday, resulted in the decision to strike him off the register immediately and indefinitely. The chair of the committee, Kathy McLean, emphasized the gravity of Duncan’s actions, stating, “By subscribing to the child pornography industry, the respondent has abused his position of trust to a vulnerable group in society, by helping to perpetrate the sexual abuse of children.”

It was noted that Duncan, who now works in a postroom, did not attend the hearing in person. His previous employment was as a specialist practitioner district nurse for the Blackwater Valley and Hart Primary Care Trust in Hampshire. His arrest on July 22, 2004, followed a police warrant executed at his residence, where authorities discovered the illicit images stored on his home computer. During the investigation, Detective Constable William Maclean testified that Duncan made a full and frank admission regarding his possession and creation of indecent images of children. The images primarily depicted young girls aged between 11 and 13 years old.

DC Maclean further explained that, in his professional experience, the number of images Duncan possessed was relatively small. However, one photograph was classified as the most severe category, “level five,” which involved a child visibly distressed, highlighting the disturbing nature of some of the material Duncan had accessed.

Last year, Duncan appeared before Horseferry Magistrates’ Court, where he faced 50 counts of making (downloading) indecent images of children, along with possession of 71 such images. He received a concurrent six-month prison sentence and was placed on the sex offenders register for a period of seven years. Rosemary Rollason, representing the council, clarified that the images were downloaded onto Duncan’s home computer and were not directly linked to his professional duties, thus not implicating his work as a nurse in the commission of the offense.

Prior to his arrest, there had been no indication of misconduct or concerns regarding Duncan’s performance as a district nurse, and he had no previous criminal record. Despite his absence from the recent hearing, Duncan submitted a letter expressing remorse and a desire to move on from his past. In his letter, he stated, “I have been more than adequately punished and find this procedure adds insult to injury upsetting my own efforts to rehabilitate myself.” He also reflected on his personal struggles, saying, “I live with my own sense of shame and stupidity, and any self-confidence I accumulated over the years has evaporated.”

Nevertheless, the committee found his explanations lacking in genuine insight into the severity and implications of his actions. Chairwoman Ms. McLean pointed out that Duncan’s behavior compromised the standards of the NMC’s code of conduct, even if his misconduct was not directly related to his professional practice. Furthermore, it was revealed that Duncan had admitted to having inappropriate feelings towards young girls in a personal document, which further underscored the concerns about his suitability to remain in the nursing profession.

Concluding the hearing, Ms. McLean stated, “His behavior is fundamentally incompatible with being a nurse, and the respondent must be removed from the register in order to protect the public.” The decision reflects the seriousness with which the regulatory body views breaches of trust and the safeguarding of vulnerable populations, especially children, in the context of healthcare professionals’ responsibilities.