Mark Elias admitted outraging public decency in court
A Manchester doctor who engaged in sex acts in ‘full view’ of train passengers has been suspended from practicing medicine for six months.
Dr Mark Elias, who was working at The Christie, engaged in ‘repeated’ sexual activity with another man for around an hour on a train from Manchester to Chester in September 2024. The pair had earlier been out drinking and to a cabaret show in the city centre.
They stopped after a conductor warned them about their behaviour, documents state. Elias admitted outraging public decency. In February last year he was handed an eight-week jail term suspended for 12 months and ordered to complete 20 days of rehabilitation activity.
He referred himself to the General Medical Council (GMC) for a disciplinary investigation. A Medical Practitioners Tribunal has now ruled that Elias, a consultant radiologist at the cancer hospital, should be suspended from practicing for six months, saying that he had ‘seriously departed from [the] fundamental tenets of the medical profession’.
The ‘seriousness of the allegations’ increased as his actions ‘involved acts of indecency, and a reckless disregard for patient safety or professional standards’, a decision report added.
Elias told panel members he believed he had been spiked. The report states: “[Dr Elias] said he was told by the co-defendant the next day that they had engaged in XXX [sic] on the train. He said that he was shocked, in disbelief, ashamed and scared to think he could have behaved in that way, and he was worried about his future.
“Dr Elias said that he told his then legal team that he immediately felt he may have been spiked as there was no other explanation for his behaviour.”
The tribunal said Elias’s account of the alleged spiking changed throughout his evidence and was ‘contradictory’. He initially claimed his drink was spiked because he went on to inhale a ‘smoky substance’ and claimed he would not have done so if he had not been spiked.
It was later clarified that he did not believe it was his drink, but instead the smoky substance that was tampered with. The tribunal ultimately ruled that, ‘on the balance of probabilities’, his drink was not spiked.
It added: “It was more likely than not that Dr Elias had consumed significantly more alcohol than he could remember. This caused him to become disinhibited, and he voluntarily inhaled the ‘smoky substance’. The Tribunal accepts Dr Elias would not have done so but for the amount of alcohol he had consumed, which led to his then inhaling the ‘smoky substance’.”
Speaking for Elias, counsel Malcolm Fortune said he ‘accepted that his standards fell seriously below those expected’. He added the doctor was ‘troubled’ by ‘personal issues’ and had ‘sought appropriate support to address them’.
He further said Elias had returned to work at The Christie prior to the tribunal and there had been ‘no repeat of the events which led to the conviction, nor have there been any complaints about Dr Elias or his clinical practice’ in the intervening time.
Elias also received character testimonies from two colleagues. One said: “I do not condone the offence that Mark committed, and am aware that it was his own flaws and bad judgement that put him in this situation he has found himself in.
“I believe it has been Mark’s personal struggles, [XXX] [sic] that has led to this offence, which in my opinion are totally out of character. He is without a doubt a good man, with a good heart, compassion and willing to go the extra mile to continue to help others, as he has always done.”
The tribunal deemed Elias’s current situation was a ‘result of his own recklessness of drinking an excessive amount of alcohol, and that he attempted to minimise and deflect the seriousness of his actions by stating that his drink had been spiked’.
It further felt ‘relevant personal context’ did not reduce ‘the seriousness of the conviction’ or ‘the level of current and ongoing risk to public protection posed by the doctor’. The tribunal ruled Elias’ fitness to practice was impaired.
