Paediatrician Myles Bradbury sentenced to 22 years for child sexual offences

Paediatrician Myles Bradbury sentenced to 22 years for child sexual offences


Myles Bradbury was a successful doctor, having practised as a specialist in child cancer at Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridgeshire, for the last five years.

Following complaints, an investigation landed him in Court where, on 15 September 2014, Dr Bradbury pleaded guilty to 25 child sex offences relating to 18 different complainants.


Bradbury’s victims were male patients aged 10-16 under his care. The offences were committed within six months of Bradbury taking his position at the hospital, and occurred over a 4.5 year period.

We’re not entirely sure of the exact nature of the offences, however it appears that they involved touching the victims’ genitalia under the guise of a necessary medical examination and encouraging them to engage in sexual activity.

Cambridge News reported: At the beginning of his sentencing hearing, prosecutor John Farmer said the defendant had a “longstanding, unlawful, sexual interest in boys”.

“He took the opportunity of fondling the boy’s genitals and encouraging them to masturbate in his presence and obtain erections for his own personal gratification.

“On some occasions, when he failed to exclude the parent, he simply carried on behind the curtain behind which the boy had gone to remove his clothes.”

The offences were:

  • 6 x Sexual Assault (maximum 10 years)
  • 13 x sexual activity with a child (maximum 14 years)
  • 3 x causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity (maximum 14 years)
  • 1 x voyeurism (maximum 2 years)
  • 2 x making an indecent image of a child (relating to 16,000 images – although we don’t know what level these were at) (maximum 10 years)


He was sentenced to 22 years’ imprisonment. Release will be at the half-way point. Those convicted of sexual offences are not eligible for release on a tag (“Home Detention Curfew”).

The judge will have applied the Sentencing Guidelines for Sexual Offences. At present, it is not possible to comment on the length of the sentences as we don’t really have sufficient information. However we can say that a lengthy sentence was inevitable and the aggravating features of the the gross breach of trust, the vulnerability of the victims and the use of his professional reputation and position to facilitate the commission of the offences would have severely aggravated the seriousness of the offences.

It is unclear whether or not full credit was given for the guilty pleas, however we can speculate that the total sentence – before credit – would have been in the order of 25-30 years which is exceptionally long.

We would expect the judge to have approached the sentencing exercise as follows:

a) determine the appropriate sentence for each offence,

b) make multiple offences committed against the same victims concurrent (unless they were committed on separate occasions, in which case there is an argument to say they should be consecutive)

c) make the sentences among the different victims consecutive

d) calculate the total and apply the principle of totality and make a reduction if appropriate

Bradbury will be required to comply with the notification requirements (the sex offenders register) for life and will no longer be allowed to work as a doctor.


Probably. He has nothing to lose. We’ll wait to see if the sentencing remarks are published until we give a firm view about the length of the sentence and the prospects of an appeal, but you will realise from reading this blog, sentences for sexual offences are not getting any shorter.


  1. Heinous crimes indeed but to my mind not as bad as battering and even killing when sometimes a suspended is given. There is a huge element of PC in this mans sentence I feel.

  2. What this man did is equally as bad as battering or killing someone, imagine a terminally ill child too afraid to tell his parent’s that his consultant sexually assaulted him and having to take that knowledge to the grave while know that one is fighting and losing one’s the fight for life. There is NOTHING PC about this verdict. The behaviour of Myles Bradbury was reprehensible, entirely of his own doing and he deserves every last second of the sentence he was given.

    • His crimes are dreadful and I never said otherwise but come on he didn’t KILL did he? He didn’t create a reign of terror over decades either.I’m not defending him but he is not a murderer and should have received a lighter sentence.

  3. When you said there was a huge element of PC in his sentence that sounded very much to me that you were saying “come on it’s not so bad is it” and an attempt to trivialise what he did. And why compare them to murder and battering they stand alone in the nature of their atrocity in need of no comparison.

    • I’ve already said he committed a heinous and dreadful crime but he did NOT kill anybody. Only recently an 84 yr old woman has received a suspended for killing someone through her dreadful driving. What price a human life? By your reckoning very little!

  4. Try to refrain from creating a red herring “very little.

    When you use PC, in relation to the sentence imposed for the sexual assault of children by the Haematologist supposed to be treating them when they were seriously or terminally, by all accounts a specialty chosen deliberately for it’s unfettered access to vulnerable, you are saying that what he did was not so bad, relatively trivial, and it’s the over sensitive overreacting (as usual). I’m surrprised you didn’t also use the word hysteria. Let me be clear it is beyond rephensible to sexually assault anyone. To coldly, cynically and deliberately set out to systematically assault as many as children as possible, via your chosen profession, for your own sexual gratification takes depravity to a whole new level. You deserve no sympathy and deserve the reap the entire consequences legal and illegal that you have wrought entirely on yourself. That relates to Myles Bradbury.

    If that is not what you meant then clarify your position by all means but don’t keep digging you’re already in the hole.

    • As you say he deserves no sympathy as his crimes were evil but I say for the last time he isn’t a killer! I am not in a hole and as far as I’m concerned this discussion is over because I cannot be bothered with your sad little warped mind warped by PC!

  5. I disagree with you.

    There is nothing PC about throwing the book at a doctor who deliberately, calculatingly and cynically chose to abuse seriously ill, terminally ill and dying children. That you don’t like my opinion is irrelevant the facts speak for themselves.

    Perhaps state your opinion to the parents of some of the children he assaulted that, in your view, it could be worse – let me know what they say.

  6. After reading this exchange of views my feeling Liberte Is how your opinions reflect on your sad and bitter self! An evil man for sure but he is equally as unhappy as you are. Have you read the note from the mother of one of his patients? Very sad and so true. Have a look for it.

  7. After reading your views about me, because I wholeheartedly condemn a paedophile doctor who assaulted scores of his patients who were children some of who were dying. I was so concerned about your opinion that I went to bed early so that I could lose sleep over it. Not.