Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service determination — substantive hearing
Struck off the register
The regulator’s term: erasure
What does “struck off the register” mean?
Being struck off (the regulator calls this "erasure") removes the practitioner from the register. They are no longer permitted to practise this profession in the UK. Erasure can be reviewed after a minimum of five years, but is otherwise indefinite.
Concerning Ju Young Um, doctor (General Medical Council 7492397).
Decision date: 25 February 2026 · Hearing started 23 February 2026 and ended 25 February 2026
In plain English
The MPTS tribunal found that Dr Ju Young Um's fitness to practise was impaired by reason of his conviction for 23 voyeurism offences in Glasgow in April 2025, for which he was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment with a 9-month extended licence period and placed on the Sex Offenders' Register for 10 years. The conviction concerned covert recordings of 28 victims in his home and in hospital staff accommodation between 2020 and 2023. The tribunal directed that his name be erased from the medical register and imposed an immediate order of suspension.
Charges
It was alleged, and admitted, that on 10 April 2025 at Glasgow Sheriff Court Dr Um was convicted of multiple counts of voyeurism under Section 9 of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009, and that on 8 May 2025 he was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment, a 9-month extended sentence, and a 10-year notification requirement under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The conviction was for the installation and covert use of recording equipment to record 19 adult males and 9 adult females (including 9 couples) without their knowledge or consent in the bedrooms and bathrooms of three addresses, two at his home and one in hospital staff accommodation, between 7 November 2020 and 23 August 2023. Approximately 130 recordings were retrieved from his phone, laptop and a storage device.
Findings
Dr Um admitted the entirety of the Allegation. The Tribunal found that his conviction engaged the statutory ground of impairment under section 35C(2)(c) of the Medical Act 1983 and that his conduct was a serious departure from paragraphs 1, 3 and 65 of Good Medical Practice (2013). It assessed the seriousness as being at the high end of the spectrum, noting that the offending was persistent and repeated over approximately three years, premeditated, predatory, and that the offences committed in hospital accommodation amounted to an abuse of his professional position. The Tribunal found Dr Um's insight to be very recent and limited (he had only accepted the sexual motivation of his conduct in late 2025), that he had taken few remedial steps, and that the risk of repetition was high. It determined that his fitness to practise was impaired by reason of his conviction.
Mitigating and aggravating factors
Aggravating factors
The Tribunal identified the following aggravating features: that the behaviour was persistent and repeated (23 sexual offences over a period of approximately three years involving 28 victims, including couples, only stopping when he was reported to the police); that the conduct was premeditated (hidden recording equipment was placed in air fresheners and smoke alarms in advance); that the conduct was predatory; that the offences committed in hospital accommodation amounted to an abuse of his professional position; and that his plea of not guilty was an aggravating feature in this case.
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.