Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service determination — substantive hearing
MPTS tribunal erases GP Dr Matthew Jones for sexually motivated examinations of patients
A Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service panel has erased GP Dr Matthew Jones from the medical register after finding he carried out sexually motivated examinations of two patients in 2015 that were not clinically indicated, one of whom was vulnerable because of her mental health.
MedicWatch editorial · Published 9 June 2026 · Updated 7 July 2026
Erasure (struck off the register)
Added to MedicWatch: 7 July 2026Report a correction
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 Matthew Jones, doctor (General Medical Council 7017606).
Decision date: 9 June 2026 · Hearing started 2 February 2026 and ended 9 June 2026
In plain English
The MPTS tribunal found that Dr Matthew Jones, a GP, carried out sexually motivated examinations of two patients in 2015 that were not clinically indicated, touching their genital areas, and that one patient was vulnerable due to her mental health. It also found he took sexual photographs of himself on a hospital landing in 2019. The tribunal decided his fitness to practise was impaired by misconduct and ordered that his name be erased from the medical register.
Charges
The GMC alleged that in January 2015 Dr Jones examined Patient A and in December 2015 examined Patient B in ways that were not clinically indicated and were sexually motivated, and that Patient B was vulnerable due to her mental health. It was alleged that during abdominal examinations he touched the patients' genital areas, and that in June 2019 he engaged in sexual behaviour at St Margaret's Hospital by taking photographs of himself naked and sexually aroused in and outside a residential room. Dr Jones admitted some elements, including placing his hand under Patient A's clothing and taking the photographs, but denied the sexually motivated touching and disputed other particulars.
Findings
The tribunal found that, during a January 2015 abdominal examination, Dr Jones placed his hand under Patient A's clothing, rubbed her pubic hair, moved his hand towards and rubbed the opening of her vagina, and pressed his body and erect penis against her; and that during a December 2015 home visit he touched Patient B's vulva. It found these examinations were not clinically indicated and were sexually motivated, and that Patient B was vulnerable due to her mental health. Several other particulars were found not proved. The photographs Dr Jones admitted taking on a hospital landing amounted to serious misconduct. The tribunal concluded his conduct was a serious departure from Good Medical Practice, that his fitness to practise was impaired on all three limbs of public protection, and that erasure was the proportionate sanction.
Mitigating and aggravating factors
Aggravating factors
The tribunal found several features increasing the seriousness of the conduct: it was repeated; it involved the exploitation of two patients in a clinical setting, one of whom was vulnerable by reason of her poor mental health; although there was no evidence of premeditation, the conduct was opportunistic and predatory; it involved an abuse of Dr Jones's professional position; and it showed a reckless disregard for patient safety and professional standards.
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.