No Action Against Cumbrian Doctor Twice Accused of Child Sex Crimes
- Dignity 4Patients
- Oct 9
- 4 min read
By Phil Coleman- 09/10/2025- Whitehaven News- [Cumbria, UK]
A district judge has refused to approve a police request to impose restrictions on a Cumbrian doctor who was twice investigated for alleged child sex offences.
Carlisle’s Rickergate court heard emotional testimony from the senior doctor, who at times wept as he protested his innocence as a barrister had outlined the Cumbria Constabulary application to subject him to a sexual risk order. Such orders aim to reduce risk to potential future child victims.
Samuel Watson, for the Constabulary, outlined how the doctor was first investigated in 2012 in an area outside Cumbria over a sexual encounter he had with a 'vulnerable' 14-year-old girl, though he said he genuinely believed she was 19. The police investigation concluded with no further action taken.
The police application was made after more recent allegations dating from late 2023 that the doctor was linked to uploading eight videos with indecent child images via social media accounts and an email address. The uploads were done via internet addresses linked to his home and work addresses.
One video, which was uploaded five times, contained indecent child images classified as Category A, the most serious kind; a video with a Category B image was uploaded once, and a third video with Category C child images was uploaded twice.
Despite evidence of the uploads, police found no indecent images on the doctor’s digital devices when he was arrested in May last year, the court heard.
That investigation also concluded with no further action.
The evidence before the court included a statement from Safer Lives, an organisation which helps those being investigated for such offences. A letter confirmed that the doctor completed a programme of work with the group.
“The purpose was for [the doctor] to gain insight and understanding into his behaviour,” said the letter. It added that that the programme’s work also aimed to give participants insight into the “experience of child victims” and the impact of abuse on a child’s physical, emotional and psychological wellbeing.
Giving evidence, the doctor said he had referred himself to the General Medical Council after the police began the latest investigation.
“I actually requested that they put an immediate suspension on my licence to practise,” he said, explaining that his employer also suspended him. He was now, however, again fully licensed to practice after the interim GMC restriction was lifted.
Asked about returning to work, he said he was not ready for this and had been living as a recluse for nearly 18 months. “I can’t interact with anyone without getting profound anxiety,” he said.
Explaining the 2012 allegations, he said the girl had contacted him via a dating website and lied about her age and her identity.
He told the court: “I was so shocked that I let my guard down; I was ashamed, determined to die. I had suicidal ideation.”
The doctor paused as he sobbed in the witness stand.
Accepting he had sexual contact with the girl, he said he firmly believed she was 19 and that she worked in a bar. After the prosecution was dropped, he moved to rebuild his life, he said.
Mr Watson then asked the doctor about the illegal child images allegations. He accepted using the Kik messaging app “sporadically” and engaging in “sexually promiscuous” exchanges with adults – but only with adults.
“It’s not something I’m proud of,” he said.
“I categorically deny ever uploading or distributing any indecent images of children,” he told the court. Questioned further by Mr Watson he said the girl involved in the 2012 allegation “looked a lot older.”
The doctor said he could not explain why the indecent videos were uploaded through his internet addresses. “It was not me,” he said.
He took the Safer Lives programme to better understand the legal process he faced after being accused, he said.
Mark Friend, for the doctor, pointed out that there was no complaint from the girl involved in the 2012 incident and no prosecution after both investigations. Nor were there any images found on the doctor’s phone.
The barrister also highlighted that the GMC had lifted the interim practice restrictions on the doctor after the no further action decision was taken.
Mr Friend also quoted from a character reference provided for the doctor by one of his senior colleagues, who described him as “exceptionally dedicated, knowledgeable and hardworking.”
“I would trust [the doctor] to look after myself and my children more than any other clinician I have met and worked with,” added the senior doctor.
Rejecting the Cumbria Police application, District Judge Philip Holden said it would be unfair to rely on the allegations from 2012 given that there was no evidence suggesting that the doctor knew the girl was 14.
As for the more recent images allegations, no indecent images were found on the doctor’s phone and there was no evidence that the offending videos were deleted.
On the balance of probabilities, said the judge, there was not sufficient evidence to conclude that the doctor had committed the sexual offences alleged. “And that is why this application in my judgement fails,” he said.
The judge added that the police application was properly brought.
Had it been approved, the order would have subjected the doctor to severe restrictions affecting his ability to be in the company of children and also his use of internet enabled devices.
If you have been affected by any of the issues raised in this article and were abused in state run medical and health facilities, you can contact Dignity4Patients, whose helpline is open Monday to Thursday, 10am to 4pm.
Dignity4Patients Commentary: Should a doctor who has been twice investigated for child sex offences be allowed to return to practice with no restrictions; or should the practitioner remain under restrictions and supervision when accessing vulnerable individuals? A statutory inquiry would highlight the systemic failures which allow for perpetrators or those under investigation to continue to operate unchecked; to ensure not only patient safety, but also practitioner safety.
