Dr Christopher BALL-NOSSA

Medical practitioners tribunal – New Hearing scheduled
Outcome on impairment
Hearing not yet held
Summary of outcome
Hearing not yet held
Type of case
Conviction / Caution
Hearing date from
10 Jul 2019
Hearing date to
12 Jul 2019
Location of hearing
St James’s Buildings, 79 Oxford Street, Manchester, M1 6FQ (get directions)
GMC reference number
Area of incident

Pre hearing information


The tribunal will inquire into the allegation that on 14 December 2018, at Coventry and Warwickshire Magistrates’ Court, Dr Ball Nossa was convicted of six counts of making indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child, contrary to s.1(1)(a) and 6 of the Protection of Children Act 1978.

It is also alleged that on 11 January 2019, at Warwick Crown Court, Dr Ball Nossa was sentenced to a two year Community Order, with a requirement to participate in the Horizon Programme for 60 days and to undertake a rehabilitation activity requirement for a maximum of 15 days; a Sexual Harm Prevention Order for a period of 10 years under Section 103 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003; to sign on the sex offender register under Section 92 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 for a period of 10 years and forfeiture of the computers containing the images and their disposal under Section 1 of the Obscene Publications Act 1964.


This reflects the allegation as it stands at the start of the hearing. The allegation may be amended as the hearing proceeds and when findings of fact are made by the tribunal.


All decisions are published online within 28 days of the conclusion of the hearing.


If you're a journalist and need up to date information about the allegation throughout the course of the hearing, please contact our press office at pressoffice@mpts-uk.org or call 0161 250 6868.

Private hearings

In accordance with Rule 41(2) of the General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules 2004, the tribunal may decide to exclude the public from the proceedings or any part of the proceedings, where they consider that the circumstances of the case outweigh the public interest in holding the hearing in public.