Panel Consideration Meeting - Conduct - Niall Murray

Definitions

Any reference in this outcome to:

• ‘GTC Scotland’ means the General Teaching Council for Scotland;
• the ‘Panel’ means the Fitness to Teach Panel considering the case;
• the ‘Rules’ (and any related expression) means the GTC Scotland Fitness to Teach Rules 2017 or refers to a provision (or provisions) within them;
• the ‘Register’ means the GTC Scotland Register of teachers; and
• ‘COPAC’ means the GTC Scotland Code of Professionalism and Conduct.

Notification of Meeting

The Panel had before it a copy of the Notice of Panel Consideration, dated 17 June 2026. The Panel noted that the Notice had been provided by email and that there was a delivery receipt. The Panel also noted that the Applicant had responded to the Final Investigation Report in July 2026.

The Panel was satisfied that the Applicant had been provided with notice of the meeting in accordance with Rules 1.6 and 2.3.1.

Accordingly, the Panel proceeded to consider the case.

Preliminary Matters

The Panel noted the background to this case being that the Applicant has just completed a PGDE at the University of Glasgow and hopes to embark on a teaching career having also completed his final placement. The Panel noted that the Applicant admitted the allegations in part and that they relate to a criminal conviction in a Thai court from April 2021

Allegation(s)

On 11 March 2022, at the Court of Appeal, Thailand, following conviction at the Bangkok South Criminal Court, Thailand, on 20 April 2021, the Applicant was convicted under Sections 90, 104, 145, paragraph 1, and 162 of the Narcotics Code, and Section 15 Paragraph 1, and 67 of the Narcotic Drugs Act 1979 and sentenced (separately) to

1. 2 months imprisonment for using Methamphetamine
2. 2 years imprisonment for possession of Methamphetamine, a Class 1 controlled narcotic.

Each count was reduced by half under Section 78 of the Criminal Code: imprisonment of one month for methamphetamine use and imprisonment of one year for possession, a total prison sentence of one year and one month.

Apart from length of sentence, the judgement of the Court of the First Instance applies.

In light of the above it is alleged that the Applicants fitness to teach is impaired and he is unfit to teach, as a result of breaching Parts 1.3, 1.4, 1.6 of GTC Scotland’s Code of Professionalism and Conduct 2012 (COPAC 2012).

Information Available to the Panel

1. Notice of Investigation, dated 2 March 2026
2. Notice of Investigation cover email and delivery receipt, dated 2 March 2026
3. Notice of Panel Consideration, dated 17 June 2026
4. Notice of Panel Consideration cover email and delivery receipt, dated 17 June 2026
5. Final Investigation Report, dated 10 June 2026, with appendices including:
   
   • a) Student provisional registration application form in the name of the Applicant
   • b) Notice of Investigation response dated 25 March 2026.
   • c) Bundle of documents containing seventy-seven pages total which contains
     
     • i. Covering letter from Global Language Services and certification details
     • ii. Document 1 - A Cambodian letter from the Applicant dated 17 January 2022 relating to the applicant losing his passport in Cambodia
     • iii. Document 2 - Judgement from Bangkok South Criminal Court dated 20 April 2021, in the Criminal Case, between Public Prosecutor, Office of the Attorney General and the Applicant
     • iv. Document 3 - Submission of appeal dated 11 June 2021 by the Applicant
     • v. Document 4 - This is a duplicate of Document 2
     • vi. Document 5 - Court of Appeal ruling, dated 11 March 2022, in the case of The Public Prosecutor, Office of the Attorney General and the Applicant
     • vii. Untranslated version of Document 1
     • viii. Untranslated version of Document 2
     • ix. Untranslated version of Document 3
     • x. Untranslated version of Document 4
     • xi. Untranslated version of Document 5

In response to the notice, the Applicant provided the following additional information for consideration by the Panel:

1. Email response from the Applicant to Notice of Panel Consideration, with three attachments, dated 13 July 2026.
2. Investigation response from the Applicant, dated 13 July 2026
3. End of placement report relating to the Applicant, dated 28 May 2026
4. Character reference in respect of the Applicant, not dated, and provided by Dr Jennifer Farrar, University of Glasgow.

Applicant’s Response

The Applicant accepts the factual circumstances of the conviction and sentence as set out in the allegation. In his response he acknowledges the seriousness of the conduct that led to the conviction and accepts full responsibility. The Applicant does not accept that his fitness to teach is currently impaired or that he is unfit to teach.

Summary of Evidence and Submissions

The Panel had before it certified translations of the Judgement of the Thai Court which convicted the Applicant and of the subsequent appeal decision in relation to that conviction. The Panel accepted that these documents along with the admissions made by the Applicant were sufficient for the purposes of Rule 1.7.18 (a) and (b).

‘Subject to rule 1.7.19, where a teacher has been convicted of a criminal offence (and provided that such conviction is neither pending appeal nor been successfully appealed):

(a) an extract conviction, or copy of the certificate of conviction certified by a competent officer of the relevant court, will be conclusive proof of the conviction; and

(b) any findings of fact upon which the conviction is based will be admissible as evidence of those facts.

The Panel noted the fulsome submissions received from the Applicant and evidence he had submitted from his final placement and from Dr Jennifer Farrar, University of Glasgow.

Decision

The Panel considered all the information available to it as described above. The Panel had a range of options open to it, as set out at Rule 2.3.2 (a) to (f).

The Panel had regard to the factors set out in the GTC Scotland Panel Consideration Practice Statement.

The Panel did not consider it appropriate to dispose of the case in accordance with Rule 2.3.2 (a). The Panel reached this conclusion for the following reasons:

The matter amounts to Relevant Conduct and there is on the face of it, a real prospect of a finding that the Applicant’s fitness to teach is impaired. The Panel considered the following factors relevant in that the conduct alleged relates to:

• Substance abuse or misuse
• Other serious activities which cause harm and affect public confidence

The Panel considered the relevant Parts of COPAC to be:

1.3: You should avoid situations both within and out with the professional context which could be in breach of the criminal law, or may call into question your fitness to teach;

Given that this matter stems from a conviction before a Thai criminal court it was clear to the Panel that part 1.3 of COPAC 2012 was engaged.

1.4: You must uphold standards of personal and professional conduct, honesty and integrity so that the public have confidence in you as a teacher and teaching as a profession;

Again, the circumstances of the criminal conviction led the Panel to the view that part 1.4 was engaged.

1.6: You should maintain an awareness that as a teacher you are a role model to pupils.

The Panel was also clear that a criminal conviction in relation to misuse of drugs was not the appropriate behaviour to model for learners and that therefore Part 1.6 was engaged.

The Panel considered the following additional factors to be relevant in their decision:

• The matter is not over 5 years of age. The applicant was convicted at the criminal Court of Appeal in Thailand as at 19 August 2022
• The matter has not already been considered
• The matter is not frivolous or vexatious. The matter relates to a serious criminal conviction in relation to drugs offences and cannot be said to be frivolous or vexatious
• The allegations have not been made anonymously or by a person who has failed to cooperate with the investigation. The Panel noted that the matter had been referred by the Applicant himself via the University of Glasgow

The Panel did not consider it appropriate to dismiss the case based on an insufficiency of evidence as provided for by Rule 2.3.2 (b). The allegations have been admitted by the Applicant.

Furthermore, the Panel did not consider the referral to be malicious.

Fitness to Teach

The Panel carefully considered all the available information and had regard to Stage 2 of the GTC Scotland Fitness to Teach Conduct Cases – Indicative Outcomes Guidance Practice Statement (‘IOG’ Practice Statement) in considering whether the Applicant’s fitness to teach is currently impaired.

Firstly, the Panel required to reach a decision on whether the facts found proved mean that the Applicant’s conduct at that time fell short of the expected professional standards.

The Panel, for all the reasons set out above and with reference to COPAC 2012 were satisfied that the Applicant’s conduct at the time of the allegations had fallen short of the required standard. Indeed, the Applicant had admitted as much.

That being the case, the Panel then required to consider whether the shortfalls identified in the Applicant's conduct were:

a) remediable; and

b) have they been remedied by the Applicant; and

c) what is the risk of reoccurrence?

The Panel also considered the public interest in this matter.

The Panel firstly noted that the conviction was for an offence which had been committed in 2020, some six years previously. Since then, the Applicant has had the opportunity to reflect on his conduct. It was apparent to the Panel, with reference to the Applicant’s statement, that there had been no repeat of the behaviour in the intervening period and that the Applicant was clear that since coming back to the United Kingdom, and having served a custodial sentence, he had made positive changes in his life. This included embarking upon the PGDE with a view to becoming a Secondary English Teacher.

The Panel noted that the Applicant had been open and honest with the University of Glasgow regarding his conviction and that he had cooperated fully with GTC Scotland in its investigation of the matter and accepted that this process was important in assessing his current fitness to teach.

The Panel was satisfied from the evidence before it that this conduct did not form part of a pattern of behaviour and there was no indication of any underlying issue which would mean that the risk of recurrence was elevated.

The Panel was also impressed with his reflections on his behaviour and its consequences and the letter before it from Dr Farrar which indicated that the Applicant had disclosed his conviction upon starting the PGDE and that he had sought advice early on how best to proceed. He had been open and honest and had, in her view, sincerely reflected on his experiences and grown as a person.

The Panel lastly considered the Applicant’s current circumstances. It noted that he now had a stable personal life and that he was anticipating entering into the teaching profession having worked hard to gain the appropriate qualifications whilst realising that his previous conduct in the form of a serious criminal conviction would be examined before he could do so. The Panel was of the view that he now had a great deal to lose were there to be any repeat of the conduct which had led to his conviction. The Panel viewed that as a strong protective factor.

In conclusion the Panel reached the view that the conduct was remediable, that it had been remedied by the Applicant over a long period of time and that the risk of recurrence was low.

Given the serious nature of the conviction in this case the Panel also considered the public interest in this matter. The Panel was of the view that while the subject matter of the conviction was clearly serious, a well-informed member of the public with access to the facts would reach the same conclusions as it had on the matter.

The Panel was of the view that protection of members of the public was not a factor in this case. It was also of the view that the maintenance of the public’s confidence in teachers and in the integrity of the teaching profession, and also the maintenance of the public’s confidence in GTC Scotland as a professional regulator, was satisfied by the fact that it had engaged in a thorough process of investigation and assessment of the Applicant’s fitness to teach.

After careful consideration, the Panel concluded that the Applicant’s fitness to teach is not currently impaired and in accordance with Rule 2.3.2 (d) it directed that no further action be taken.