Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service determination — restoration hearing
Restoration to the register refused
The regulator’s term: restoration refused
What does “restoration to the register refused” mean?
A practitioner who had been struck off applied for restoration to the register and the application was refused. The original strike-off remains in effect.
Concerning Julian Proctor, doctor (General Medical Council 6164761).
Decision date: 27 February 2026 · Hearing started 23 February 2026 and ended 27 February 2026
In plain English
The MPTS tribunal refused Dr Julian Proctor's application to be restored to the Medical Register, eight years after he was erased in 2018 for sexual harassment of a junior doctor and grossly negligent care of a patient. It found his insight and remediation were limited, that he had not gained any healthcare experience since erasure, and that the risk of repetition remained high. He cannot make a further restoration application for at least 12 months.
Charges
This was an application by Dr Proctor for his name to be restored to the Medical Register following his erasure for disciplinary reasons in 2018. The original 2017-2018 Tribunal had found that, over approximately nine days in April 2016, Dr Proctor sexually harassed an FY1 doctor (Dr B), including two sexual assaults; that on or around 23 March 2016 he provided deficient clinical care amounting to grossly negligent treatment of a patient (Patient C); and other matters which the Tribunal heard in private. The previous Tribunal directed that his name be erased from the Medical Register.
Findings
The Tribunal applied the test in the MPTS guidance on restoration following disciplinary erasure and considered the circumstances which led to erasure, Dr Proctor's insight, what he had done since erasure, the steps taken to keep his medical knowledge and skills up to date, and the lapse of time. It found that Dr Proctor had only begun to develop insight, that he sought to minimise his actions in oral evidence, that his remediation (including a three-day boundaries course completed in early 2025) was limited and untested, and that he had not gained any clinical, voluntary or shadowing experience in healthcare since erasure. It concluded that the risk of repetition remained high and that all three limbs of the overarching objective were engaged.
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.