A doctor who, a medical tribunal found, carried out intimate examinations on two female patients without clinical justification has been removed from the UK medical register. The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service ruled on Tuesday that the conduct—dating back to 2015—was sexually motivated and represented a risk to patient safety.
The tribunal ordered an immediate suspension at a hearing on 9 June before deciding to erase Dr Matthew Jones (also known professionally as Matthew Adam) from the register. The decision follows evidence heard by the General Medical Council and comes despite a previous criminal acquittal in 2021.
What the tribunal concluded
Members of the panel examined two separate consultations from January and December 2015 involving women aged 26 and 47. For one patient, records and witness testimony described an abdominal appointment that left her distressed after the doctor moved his hand beneath her waistband and underwear.
Practice notes and a partner’s account, given to the tribunal, said the woman returned to the car in tears and later went back into the surgery to complain. The panel found there was no clinical reason to perform the lower-abdomen check in the manner described and accepted her complaint as proven.
Claims from the second patient were treated cautiously because she had received morphine around the time of the consultation; nevertheless, the tribunal concluded on the balance of probabilities that intimate contact had taken place. Other allegations examined during the hearing were not upheld.
Overall, the panel determined there was “no plausible explanation” for the behaviour and that the examinations were sexually motivated, a conclusion that the tribunal said indicated serious professional misconduct.
- Doctor: Matthew Jones (also known as Matthew Adam)
- Incidents: January and December 2015
- Patients involved: women aged 26 and 47
- Employer history: worked in Angus and Perth & Kinross; formerly partner at a Forfar practice; later worked in Liverpool
- Other findings: admitted taking inappropriate self-images on a personal phone while at work
- Criminal case: acquitted at the High Court of Justiciary in Glasgow in 2021
- Regulatory outcome: immediate suspension followed by erasure from the medical register by the MPTS
Regulatory standard and the case’s significance
The MPTS uses the civil standard of proof—decisions rest on whether something is more likely than not—unlike criminal courts, which require proof beyond reasonable doubt. That distinction explains how a regulatory body can remove a physician even after a criminal acquittal.
The tribunal said the misconduct caused serious harm and that the risk could not be sufficiently reduced by conditions or suspension. For that reason, panel members concluded that permitting Dr Jones to remain registered would undermine public confidence in the profession.
Why this matters to patients and the profession
Regulatory rulings of this kind are intended to protect patients and preserve trust in primary care. When a practitioner is found to have abused their clinical role, the consequences extend beyond the individuals directly affected: they can prompt reviews of local practice safeguards, reporting procedures and how clinics supervise intimate examinations.
For patients, the case underlines the importance of clear consent, the right to a chaperone during intimate checks, and prompt reporting if an examination feels inappropriate. For employers and regulators, it reinforces the need to investigate complaints thoroughly and act where there is a sustained risk to safety.
Tribunal chair Nessa Sharkett summed up the panel’s reasoning, saying the conduct amounted to a serious abuse of professional position that caused harm and presented an ongoing risk to public protection — factors that justified removal from the register.
Hi, I’m Benjamin, a member of the Sherburne County Citizen team. With a passion for writing and a deep interest in current affairs, I thoroughly enjoy bringing you the latest news and trends that affect our daily lives.
