Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service determination — substantive hearing
Erasure (struck off the register)
Added to MedicWatch: 3 May 2026Report a correction
What does “struck off the register” mean?
The regulator directed removal from the register in this decision. The decision explains when the direction takes effect and any appeal provisions. Check the official register for the practitioner's current registration status.
Concerning Samuel Stefan, doctor (General Medical Council 7080797).
Decision date: 3 December 2025 · Hearing started 10 November 2025 and ended 3 December 2025
In plain English
The MPTS tribunal found that Dr Stefan engaged in repeated acts of sexually motivated conduct towards three junior colleagues at Queen Alexandra Hospital in Portsmouth between August 2022 and February 2023. The tribunal found the conduct constituted sexual harassment, was an abuse of his more senior position, and continued after Trust and police investigations. The tribunal found no insight, remorse, or remediation, and determined that erasure was the only appropriate and proportionate sanction.
Charges
The GMC alleged that on 5 August 2022, Dr Stefan arranged to meet a junior colleague (Mr A) in hospital toilets via an application and engaged in sexually motivated conduct. On 9 December 2022 and 12 December 2022, whilst working with Mr B, he engaged in repeated acts of sexual misconduct including unwanted physical contact of a sexual nature, explicit sexual comments, and requests for sexual acts. On 24 February 2023, whilst working with Mr C, he made repeated unwanted sexual contact with Mr C's body. The GMC alleged this conduct was without consent, sexually motivated, constituted sexual harassment under the Equality Act 2010, and was an abuse of his more senior position. Dr Stefan was absent and unrepresented throughout the proceedings.
Findings
The Tribunal found the allegations against Dr Stefan proved and determined that his fitness to practise was impaired. It found the misconduct involved repeated acts of a sexual nature against three junior colleagues across four separate occasions, continuing even after investigation by the Trust and police following the first incident. The Tribunal found a pattern of behaviour incompatible with the standards expected of a registered medical practitioner, a complete absence of insight or remorse, and no evidence of remediation. Erasure was the only appropriate and proportionate sanction. An immediate order was imposed.
Mitigating and aggravating factors
Mitigating factors
The Tribunal found no mitigating factors. There was no apology, no expression of remorse, no recognition of the seriousness of the misconduct, and no evidence of insight or remediation.
Aggravating factors
Dr Stefan failed to work collaboratively with junior colleagues. The conduct was sexually motivated and constituted sexual harassment on four separate occasions in the workplace. The misconduct involving Mr B and Mr C occurred after Dr Stefan had already been investigated by the Trust and police following the first incident involving Mr A, demonstrating blatant disregard for professional boundaries. There was a persistent and continuing lack of insight. Dr Stefan did not engage with the regulatory process.
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.