Mr Stephen Murphy

The Secretary of State does not make these decisions themselves. They are made by a senior official on the recommendation of an independent panel.

Teacher's name: Mr Stephen Murphy

Location teacher worked: Liverpool, North West England

Date of professional conduct panel: 8 December 2025

Outcome type: No order made

Notice is hereby given that, in accordance with The Teacher's’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, a professional conduct panel was convened to consider the case of Mr Stephen Murphy Liverpool, North West England.

Teacher misconduct

Ground Floor, South

Cheylesmore House

5 Quinton RoadCoventryCV1 2WT

Email TRA.Casework@education.gov.uk

Telephone 020 7593 5393

Information about regulating the teaching profession and the process for dealing with serious teacher misconduct.

Mr Stephen Murphy: Professional Conduct Panel Hearing outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education December 2025 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Witnesses 4 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 5 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 7 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 11 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Stephen Murphy TRA reference: 20400 Date of determination: 8 December 2025 Former employer: Alsop High School, Liverpool, Merseyside Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 8 December 2025 at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT, to consider the case of Mr Murphy. The panel members were Mrs Melissa West (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mr Richard Young (lay panellist) and Mr Philip Jolowicz (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Abigail Trencher of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Zahra Evans of Capsticks LLP solicitors. Mr Murphy was represented by Mr Nicholas Kennan, Counsel of Cornwall Street Chambers, instructed by Thompsons solicitors. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegation set out in the notice of hearing dated 23 September 2025. It was alleged that Mr Murphy was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: 1. On 9 August 2021 at South Sefton Magistrates’ Court, he was convicted of assaulting Child A by beating him on the 5 June 2021. Mr Murphy made an admission as to the conviction and that his conduct amounted to a conviction of a relevant offence. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology and List of Key People – pages 3 to 4 Section 2: Notice of hearing and response – pages 5 to 47 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 48 to 101 In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following: Section 5: Teacher’s documents – pages 102 to 109 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing, had watched the CCTV video and listened to the recording of the police interview. The panel also read the additional documents that the panel decided to admit. In the consideration of this case, the panel had regard to the document Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession 2020, (the “Procedures”). Witnesses The TRA did not call any witnesses to give oral evidence at the hearing. Mr Murphy gave oral evidence. 5 Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. On 1 September 2003, Mr Murphy commenced his employment as a PE teacher at Alsop High School (“the School”). On 5 June 2021, Mr Murphy allegedly physically assaulted Child A. On 9 August 2021, Mr Murphy pleaded guilty at the South Sefton Magistrates’ Court and was convicted of assault by beating of Child A. On 6 November 2021, Mr Murphy’s employment with the School ceased. On 11 November 2021, the matter was referred to the TRA. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegation against you proved, for these reasons: 1. On 9 August 2021 at South Sefton Magistrates’ Court, you were convicted of assaulting Child A by beating him on the 5 June 2021. Mr Murphy made an admission as to the fact of the conviction. Notwithstanding this, the panel made a determination based on the facts available to it. The panel noted page 8 of the Teacher misconduct: the prohibition of teachers (‘the Advice’) which states that where there has been a conviction at any time, of a criminal offence, the panel will accept the certificate of conviction as conclusive proof of both the conviction and the facts necessarily implied by the conviction, unless exceptional circumstances apply. The panel did not find that any exceptional circumstances applied in this case. The panel had before it a certificate of conviction from South Sefton Magistrates’ Court, which recorded that Mr Murphy was convicted 9 August 2021 of assaulting Child A by beating him on 5 June 2021. The panel noted that Mr Murphy pleaded guilty to the offence. In respect of the conviction above, Mr Murphy was sentenced to a total of 40 hours of unpaid work, 10 days’ rehabilitation activity requirement and £85 in costs. 6 Following examination of the documents before the panel, the panel found allegation 1 proven. Findings as to conviction of a relevant offence Having found the allegation proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of the proved allegation amounted to a conviction for a relevant offence. The panel noted that Mr Murphy admitted he had been convicted of a relevant offence. In doing so, the panel had regard to the document Teacher misconduct: The prohibition of teachers, which is referred to as “the Advice”. The panel first considered whether the conduct of Mr Murphy in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that, by reference to Part 2, Mr Murphy was in breach of the following standards: • Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by o showing tolerance of and respect for the rights of others o not undermining fundamental British values, including the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect. The panel concluded that Mr Murphy’s actions were relevant to teaching, working with children and in an education setting. The offence involved an assault on a child and was clearly relevant to Mr Murphy’s role and position of trust as a teacher. The panel noted that the behaviour involved in committing the offence had an impact on the safety and/or security of a child of school age, Child A. The panel also took account of the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. The panel considered that Mr Murphy’s behaviour in committing the offence could affect public confidence in the teaching profession, given the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the community. The panel noted that Mr Murphy’s behaviour did not lead to a sentence of imprisonment, which was indicative that the offence was at the less serious end of the possible spectrum. The panel also considered the offences listed on pages 12 and 13 of the Advice. This was a case concerning an offence involving violence which the Advice states is likely to be considered a relevant offence. 7 The panel carefully considered the mitigating circumstances presented on behalf of Mr Murphy. In his oral evidence, [REDACTED]. On the date of the incident, Mr Murphy described a triggering event that led him to attempt to resolve the situation. However, his response was not a momentary lapse in judgment; rather, it involved a sustained loss of control. The incident lasted approximately eight minutes, occurred in a public setting, and took place in the presence of a younger child. These factors indicate that the behaviour was not fleeting and had a greater potential to impact public confidence. As set out above, the panel acknowledged that the offence did not result in a custodial sentence and therefore concluded that it fell at the lower end of the spectrum of seriousness. Nevertheless, given the duration of the incident, its occurrence in public, and the presence of a child, the panel concluded that the conviction was sufficiently connected to the teaching profession to be considered relevant. The panel found that the seriousness of the offending behaviour that led to the conviction was relevant to Mr Murphy’s ongoing suitability to teach. The panel considered that a finding that this conviction was for a relevant offence was necessary to reaffirm clear standards of conduct so as to maintain public confidence in the teaching profession. Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State Given the panel’s findings in respect of a conviction of a relevant offence, it was necessary for the panel to go on to consider whether it would be appropriate to recommend the imposition of a prohibition order by the Secretary of State. In considering whether to recommend to the Secretary of State that a prohibition order should be made, the panel had to consider whether it would be an appropriate and proportionate measure, and whether it would be in the public interest to do so. Prohibition orders should not be given in order to be punitive, or to show that blame has been apportioned, although they are likely to have punitive effect. The panel had regard to the particular public interest considerations set out in the Advice and, having done so, found a number of them to be relevant in this case, namely, the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils, the protection of other members of the public, the maintenance of public confidence in the profession, and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct. In light of the panel’s findings against Mr Murphy, which involved the conviction of assault against a child by way of beating, there was a strong public interest consideration in respect of the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils and the protection of other members of the public. 8 The panel was satisfied that, notwithstanding its finding that the conviction was relevant to the teaching profession, there was no ongoing risk of repetition or harm to pupils or members of the public. Mr Murphy had been a teacher f