Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service determination — substantive hearing
No impairment found
What does “no impairment found” mean?
The regulator considered the case and found that the practitioner's fitness to practise was not currently impaired. No restrictions are imposed.
Concerning Richard Latcham, doctor (General Medical Council 1730773).
Decision date: 13 March 2026 · Hearing started 9 March 2026 and ended 13 March 2026
In plain English
The MPTS tribunal found that Dr Richard Latcham's fitness to practise is not impaired, and issued no warning. Dr Latcham, a psychiatrist, had been accused of asking inappropriate and sexually-themed questions while assessing a man for a medical negligence claim. The tribunal found the man's evidence was unreliable and escalated over time. The only question proved was a relevant one about his ex-partner, which the tribunal found appropriate within the context of a psychiatric assessment.
Charges
Dr Latcham, a specialist psychiatrist accredited as an expert with the Royal College of Psychiatrists, was instructed as an expert witness in psychiatry to assess Mr A in connection with a clinical negligence claim. It was alleged that on 5 July 2023, during the assessment, Dr Latcham asked Mr A a series of inappropriate and irrelevant questions of a sexual nature concerning his sexual orientation, sexual practices and sexual partners, and that this conduct constituted sexual harassment under section 26(2) of the Equality Act 2010.
Findings
The Tribunal found that Mr A's evidence was unreliable and that his account had escalated and become more lurid over time. It found that the only question Dr Latcham had asked from the schedule was, indirectly, about Mr A's ex-partner. It accepted expert evidence from Dr D that exploring relationships and psychosocial background was an appropriate part of a holistic psychiatric assessment, and found that question was relevant and not inappropriate. The Tribunal therefore found that the facts proved did not amount to misconduct and that there was no legal basis for considering impairment. Both the GMC and the doctor agreed no warning should be issued.
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If a fact on this page is wrong, or you believe the page should not be published, please submit a correction or takedown request.