Last Updated on 12 July 2026 by Watchdog Witness
Introduction: A Story That Flew Under the Radar
In a case that has received virtually no mainstream media coverage, a psychiatric nurse has been struck off after a terrifying weekend-long campaign of harassment against his colleagues. Ronan Burke, a registered psychiatric nurse, was struck off in October 2025 after the High Court confirmed the decision of the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Ireland (NMBI) .
This case, published on Watchdog Witness as part of our commitment to exposing professional misconduct, is a shocking story of a trusted healthcare professional who used his position to terrorise colleagues. Despite the severity of the misconduct and the High Court’s strong ruling, this story appears to have been ignored by national media outlets – making it a true Watchdog Witness exclusive.
Who Is Ronan Burke?
Ronan Martin Burke was a registered psychiatric nurse, listed on the psychiatric nurse division of the NMBI register . He was employed as a clinical lead by a healthcare company in November 2019 . His employment lasted just nine days before he was removed due to “serious grounds for concern” .
The Terrifying Weekend: 40+ Communications
The complaint against Burke arose from a single weekend in November 2019. From Thursday 21 November to Monday 25 November 2019, Burke sent more than 40 communications to members of the company’s staff .
The content was deeply disturbing:
- Threats and Abuse: Burke described the CEO of the company as being “Fenian” and accused him of potentially having him (Burke) killed over the weekend .
- Personal Attacks: He described the CEO as “money grabbing and without a soul” .
- References to the Unborn: Multiple email communications contained disturbing references to the “unborn” of the Head of Nursing .
- Profanities and Threats: The complaint noted the use of profanities and threats in multiple communications .
- Verbal Assault: The HR Manager of the company was in “deep distress” following a verbal assault from Burke .
The communications came at sporadic hours, often in batches of quick succession, sometimes with conflicting content, and were on occasion followed by apologies from Burke .
A Nurse with a “Relevant Medical Disability”
The Fitness to Practise Committee of the NMBI received clear, uncontroverted expert evidence that Burke suffers from a mental disorder, being a paranoid persecutory psychosis or a personality disorder . On this basis, the Committee was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Burke has a “relevant medical disability” .
This diagnosis raises significant questions about patient safety: how was a nurse with such a condition allowed to practice in a psychiatric setting?
The Company’s Concerns: A Risk to Patients
The company that briefly employed Burke was so concerned by his behaviour that it could not consider allowing him to meet its clients or next of kin – something the company said had not happened during Burke’s nine days of employment . The complaint asserted that Burke might be a risk to himself, colleagues, and patients .
The NMBI Decision: Cancellation of Registration
On 11 June 2025, the NMBI decided to impose the sanction of cancellation on Burke’s registration, as recommended by the Fitness to Practise Committee .
The High Court Confirmation: “Unreasonable and Irrational” Not To
The NMBI applied to the High Court pursuant to Section 74 of the Nurses and Midwives Act 2011 to confirm its decision .
Burke opposed the application but did not appeal the NMBI’s decision. He informed the court that he could not afford legal representation and had been let down by someone he believed was a legal representative .
Mr Justice David Barniville, President of the High Court, delivered his judgment on 23 October 2025 . The judge confirmed the NMBI’s decision, stating that any other decision by the Board would have been “unreasonable and irrational” .
Section 74(3) of the 2011 Act requires the High Court to confirm the NMBI’s decision unless it sees “good reason not to do so” . Justice Barniville found no such reason.
Patient Safety Questions
The case raises serious questions about how a psychiatric nurse with a paranoid persecutory psychosis was allowed to practice. The NMBI had initially decided not to bring an application to suspend Burke’s registration, only doing so in September 2023 – nearly four years after the complaint was made . The orders were continued on various dates thereafter .
Why This Story Deserves Attention
This is a case that should have been front-page news. A psychiatric nurse, entrusted with the care of vulnerable patients, terrorised his colleagues with 40+ threatening communications over a single weekend. His behaviour was so concerning that his employer could not allow him near clients. The High Court confirmed his strike-off, stating that any other decision would have been “unreasonable and irrational.”
Yet, this story has been ignored by national media. It is a classic example of a story that falls through the cracks – a case that deserves exposure and a public audience.
A Cautionary Tale
The Ronan Burke case serves as a stark warning about the importance of professional regulation and the need for robust patient protection. It also raises uncomfortable questions about how a nurse with a serious mental disorder was allowed to practice in a psychiatric setting.
Sources
- vLex Ireland: The Nursing and Midwifery Board v Burke [2025] IEHC 557
- BAILII (British and Irish Legal Information Institute): The Nursing and Midwifery Board v Burke [2025] IEHC 557
Disclaimer
Disclaimer: This article is based on publicly available court records, including the judgment of the High Court in The Nursing and Midwifery Board of Ireland v Ronan Martin Burke [2025] IEHC 557, delivered by Mr Justice David Barniville on 23 October 2025 . All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. The information contained herein does not constitute legal advice and is provided for informational and journalistic purposes only. Watchdog Witness does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information presented and accepts no liability for any errors or omissions. This article may be updated as further information becomes available.
Watchdog Witness will continue to track this case and others like it.
Should you wish to request the removal of this article, we will consider legitimate and lawful grounds for doing so, in accordance with our editorial policy and data protection obligations. If you have information about this story — a tip-off, new evidence, or a correction — we want to hear from you. Your identity will be protected. If you believe any detail in this article is inaccurate, please contact us with your evidence, and we will review it promptly.
Contact us or share your story — your voice matters. — [contact us or share your story]. Email us at watchdogwitness@proton.me
About The Author
