Myles Bradbury – paediatric haematologist pleads guilty to child sex offences

Myles Bradbury – paediatric haematologist pleads guilty to child sex offences

Photo from the Bury Free Press


Myles Bradbury was a successful doctor, he has been a specialist in child cancer at Addenbrooke’s Hospital for the last five years. Following complaints about his behaviour, an investigation landed him in Court where, on 15th September 2014, Dr Bradbury pleaded guilty to 25 child sex offences relating to 18 different complainants.



At this stage, as is so often the case, facts are a bit thin on the ground. What we can glean from the news is that the offences are as follows :

  • 6 x Sexual Assault
  • 13 x engaging in sexual activity with a child
  • 3 x causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity
  • 1 x voyeurism
  • 2 x making an indecent image of a child (relating to 16,000 images – although we don’t know what level these were at)

It is clear on the back of the charges that Dr Bradbury is facing a lengthy sentence sentence. Just how long depends on the details of what exactly it was he did.

The Judge will be guided by the Sentencing Guidelines for Sexual Offences, but again, it is not possible to comment too much on what he will get, as we don’t have more details.

It is also the case that Dr Bradbury will no longer be allowed to work as a doctor.


Dan is a barrister at 2 Dr. Johnson’s Buildings practising in crime.


  1. It becomes clear that NO one can be trusted with children ( & v. often Women). He can’t practice as a Doctor but can he work with children or in the community again. Will he be placed on a sex offender register? I look forward to seeing what sentence he will get. Thks for the Sentencing Guidelines for Sexual Offences. I will be looking at this properly in time.

    • I would agree with some of what you say except that it is seldom women and very often men but that doesn’t make any of this right.

  2. It is nonsense to say that “NO one can be trusted with children”.
    I accept that there are offenders, and also that offences are more often committed by men than by women, but the sweeping generalisation that no one can be trusted with children is just too wrong to let pass. If that were true, who would we have bring children up, educate them, look after them and so on? Of course children have to be protected as best we can, but someone has to be trusted with children.

  3. Most damage to children is done by parents; if sexual usually the the father; if violent but not sexual more by the father than by the mother; if emotional probably evens, but who knows?

    But we go on trusting parents with their children. And parents decide whom to trust; relations, friends, babysitters, parents of sleepover friends. They cannot outsource the responsibility.

  4. Nathalie: somebody has to be. Most abuse of children – sexual or violent or emotional – comes from the parents but we still let them bring their children up until they are shown to have failed. have you got a better idea?

  5. Is this doctor still being paid his salary? I noticed that it was said that he had been “suspended” from duty in a television report.
    Is the government still paying his salary of circa £200,000 per year?
    Please tell me it isn’t so.

  6. Myles treated my daughter for leukaemia & Avascular Necrosis. We made friends with many families and we all found him to be completely professional at all times. This is so hard to accept. I personally would not leave a room for my child to be examined and was never asked to. If I had been, even by Myles who I totally trusted- I would have refused. I am surprised 18 parents allowed this. As a parent you trust your doctor, he must have used this power to make the parents think it was ok. I feel so upset for the effected families but a part of me will hold a place in my heart for Myles for saving my daughters life by the choices he helped us make & the amazing care he gave us. I am so sad that such a brilliant man who was held on a pedestal could stoop so low. I hope he is punished accordingly & receives the treatment he desperately needs.

    • I suppose if peodophiles actually looked like monsters, as popular culture would have us believe, it would be easy to identify them and we’d all know who to avoid. What this shows is that it is “ordinary” men; someone’s husband, father, son, doctor, teacher who are committing monstrous acts and that’s what is most unsettling and palatable of all. There is simply no way of knowing just from looking at the picture an individual chooses to present as their public face what they are capable of when they think no-one is watching.

  7. As Dr Bradbury has pled guilty to all of the offences, he will receive a reduction in sentence to account for saving the Courts’ time (and money), and sparing the victims from enduring a trial. Depending when he accepted guilt, this would usually result in a reduction from 1/10 of a prison sentence up to 1/3 of the prison sentence.

    Apparently, one of the victims was as young as eight years old. Any victim under the age of 13 years, immediately involves a higher sentence. Other aggravating factors which will be taken into account on sentencing will be the victims’ vulnerability, and Dr Bradbury abusing his position of authority.

    In view of the number of offences, it will be interesting to see how many will run consecutively rather than concurrently. If all of the prison sentences run concurrently, he could theoretically be released from prison (on probation) after only 8 years or so. I think this is unlikely though.

    As he will be convicted of an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, he will automatically be on the Sex Offenders Register for life, and will be subject to monitoring by the Multi Agency Public Protection Panel (MAPPP) in his area. He may also be the subject of a Sexual Offences Prevention Order such as not being allowed to own or use a computer (in relation to the child pornography convictions).

    If Dr Bradbury has not been dismissed by his employer (awaiting the outcome of this Court case), the fact that he has pled guilty should now be sufficient for him to be dismissed very rapidly. The salary of a Hospital Consultant is in the region of £85000 – £110000.

    In terms of being a Doctor, I imagine that the General Medical Council have already issued an interim suspension order whilst the allegations were investigated. Now that Dr Bradbury has pled guilty they will hear a full case, which is more of a procedure, as it is very likely that he will be struck off the register.

    In view of the offences, Dr Bradbury will be referred to the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) regarding his inability to work with children, and it’s very likely that he will be placed on the Barred List as being unsuitable for work with children. Any employee or volunteer in contact with children requires a DBS check prior to working or volunteering in that role.

    From the cases which I have worked on, and those I know about, ‘treating’ sexual offenders is a complicated area. The evidence for the success of the Sexual Offenders Treatment Programme (SOTP) is varied, largely because most of these programmes take place in prison, and offenders may have secondary reasons to undertake and ‘learn’ from these courses (eg. forthcoming Parole Board Hearing).
    From my and my colleagues experience, we have found the following:

    The perpetrators acceptance/plea of guilty of the offence(s) is not necessarily an indicator that they are ‘treatable’.

    Perpetrators who offend against children are almost always not ‘treatable’. Whilst some sexual gratification is usually present for the perpetrator, the offence(s) is more to meet the perpetrators’ need for power and control. Sexual offenders almost always target vulnerable victims; lone females, the disabled, the elderly and partners (vulnerable due to their emotional bonds with the perpetrator). Of course the most vulnerable in society are children, and in this case Dr Bradbury appears to have targeted at least one victim under the age of 13 years – recognised as the age which most children can make decisions for themselves. Studies on the UK male prison population in general have shown that a very high proportion of prisoners have an antisocial personality disorder, and in child sex offenders, this is almost always the case. This certainly fits in with Dr Bradbury’s modus operandi, and a description of him as ‘cold and calculating’ by his employer. Many child sexual offenders also score highly on Hare’s Psychopathy Checklist – Revised (PCL-R) – an internationally recognised and used tool to assess the degree of antisocial personality traits in an individual (the most extreme antisocial personality disorder being ‘psychopathy’, and the person a ‘psychopath.’ Whilst there is limited information available, the variety of offences, the vulnerability of the victims, the environment of the offences, the repetitive nature of the offences over a long period of time, the lack of remorse (he did not give himself up – he was caught), the abuse of trust, and his cold, calculating and deceptive manner all lead to the conclusion that he is very likely to display a significant number of antisocial personality traits, probably along with other abnormal personality traits. It is unlikely he is ‘treatable’.

    We are all aware that there is a high rate of child sexual offenders finishing their prison sentence and re-offending again. As a society we need to determine whether we treat all such individuals as the same, and lock them up for life.

  8. What a desperately sad case.

    In answer to the query above about whether MB is being paid, I expect so if he has not been sacked already by his Trust. However his salary was over-estimated: a consultant of 5 years’ standing is paid <100K, around £85-90K.

  9. This is the outcome of elitist British public school education. Look into his childhood , upbringing,you might find answers there .