Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service determination — substantive hearing

MPTS orders Dr William Smerdon's erasure after sexual misconduct findings

The tribunal found misconduct involving two vulnerable patients and imposed immediate suspension. Controlling and manipulative behaviour allegations were not proved, alongside several other rejected allegations.

MedicWatch editorial · Published 21 August 2026 · Updated 22 September 2026

Erasure (struck off the register)

Data last checked: 22 September 2026Report a correction

What does “struck off the register” mean?

The regulator directed removal from the register in this decision. The decision explains when the direction takes effect and any appeal provisions. Check the official register for the practitioner's current registration status.

Concerning William Smerdon, doctor (General Medical Council 6167906).

Decision date: 21 August 2026 · Hearing started 20 October 2025 and ended 21 August 2026

In plain English

The MPTS tribunal directed Dr William Smerdon's removal from the medical register after finding sexual misconduct involving two vulnerable patients. This included a sexual relationship with one patient and non-consensual kissing and touching of another. It imposed an immediate suspension, finding limited insight and a continuing risk of repetition. Allegations that he controlled or manipulated the first patient were not proved, and several other allegations were also rejected.

Charges

The tribunal considered allegations of sexually motivated conduct towards two vulnerable patients in 2012-2013 and 2019, including a sexual relationship with one patient, controlling or manipulative conduct, and non-consensual touching and sexual harassment of the other.

Findings

The tribunal found serious misconduct involving a sexual relationship with a patient known to be vulnerable and, in a separate case, non-consensual hugging, kissing and touching amounting to sexual harassment. Controlling and manipulative behaviour towards the first patient was not proved. Several other allegations were not proved, including offering antipsychotic medication without prescription, restricting the first patient's ability to leave, and certain alleged touching of the second patient. It found limited insight, incomplete remediation and a continuing risk of repetition, and directed erasure with an immediate suspension order. It considered suspension insufficient to protect the public and uphold confidence and standards.

Mitigating factors

The Tribunal acknowledged the mitigating factors set out by Ms Tanchel in her submissions, namely: that Dr Smerdon has fully engaged with the regulatory process; he has attended a recognised course addressing professional boundaries; his clinical competence has not come under question; his personal circumstances at the time of the events are context relevant to risk assessment; the impact on Dr Smerdon of the findings already made and the publicity; and, the lapse of time since the events. Whilst the Tribunal accepted that these mitigating factors were present, it did not attribute them significant weight when assessing what sanction, if any, to impose due to the seriousness of the concerns and its findings at the earlier stages, as indicated by the SG.

Aggravating factors

The Tribunal determined that the above paragraphs of the SG were applicable and that these features (abuse of professional position, vulnerable patients, sexual misconduct) were all present in this case, indicating that more serious action was likely to be required.

Source

All facts on this page are drawn from the publicly published Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service determination linked below. MedicWatch does not editorialise the regulator’s findings.

Spot something incorrect?

If a fact on this page is wrong, or you believe the page should not be published, please submit a correction or takedown request.