Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Panel rules on nurse accused of child sex


A district nurse accused of serial sex with a child will face the full force of claims against her, a professional panel ruled on Wednesday.

Victoria Horsley, 36, of Tyn-Y-Gongl, Gwynedd, North Wales, is due to come face-to-face with her alleged lover at a hearing.

The teenager, now aged 19, is a key witness against her at a Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) disciplinary committee in Cardiff.

Horsley’s legal team had the main charge against her struck from the list, on a technicality on Wednesday.

But the NMC panel of three experts ruled that it could be re-included, ensuring full details of her alleged activities will be made public.

The panel adjourned proceedings for at least three months to allow her team time to contest the allegations.

It heard that Horsley was warned off having anything to do with the teenager’s family when claims about her and the teenager first surfaced.

A year later they complained again, alleging that the illicit relationship had continued in secret.

Police interviewed the teenager, known as child A, as part of an exhaustive investigation into the claims in 2006.

Criminal proceedings were eventually ruled out on the basis of “inconstancies” in child A’s story.

Horsley was a district nurse at North West Wales Trust at the time, but has since left the profession.

Child A and two other teenagers, child B and child C, who each form part of proceedings, were put up at a series of four star hotels in Cardiff awaiting the hearing this week.

Horsley lodged in accommodation separate from the Mercure Holland House Hotel, where the hearing was held, to reduce any risk of meeting the teenagers socially.

That risk disappeared after lengthy legal argument on Wednesday and the day culminated in a decision to hold the hearing, with all four charges against her intact, in the spring.


Readers' comments (4)

  • Well, at least its nice to know how our £76 per year is being spent. Its clear that the NMC is no longer our shield!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • In the event a nurse has been abusing a minor I dont think it is the NMCs job to shield them from being punished. In this case I think the NMC is in the right.

    However the article does not say that the boy was actually a minor at the time of the relationship taking place or if the boy was a patient of the nurse (which breaches our code if he was).

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I am not sure what the first commenter on this article is trying to say. Do you feel that the NMC is meant to defend wrong doing? I was under the impression that their role, in this case, is to maintain GOOD standards and protect the public from harm. Personally, for £76 a year that is not bad and if this nurse did have either a sexual relationship or delivered some sort of sexual abuse to a minor then she is not fit to be a nurse (or many other professions.) I pay four times that for house insurance! The article does say the person is now 19 and that the accusations were towards a child so I think we can safely assume the person was a minor at the time. It clearly breaches a moral code and likely to breach our nursing code of conduct too. Just as the MP recently was given a custodial sentence for fraudulently claiming expenses, this person needs to be investigated and charged if it was against the law. The MP in question actually fraudulantly claimed for accommodation he and his family actually owned. What a bad example to us all.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • It does tell you how old the teenager was at the time... "The teenager, now aged 19..." "...Police interviewed the teenager, known as child A, as part of an exhaustive investigation into the claims in 2006.". So in 2011 they are 19, 5 years ago in 2006 they were being sexually abused by someone in a position of power, they were 14 or 15.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.