Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service determination — substantive hearing
Struck off the register
The regulator’s term: erasure
What does “struck off the register” mean?
Being struck off (the regulator calls this "erasure") removes the practitioner from the register. They are no longer permitted to practise this profession in the UK. Erasure can be reviewed after a minimum of five years, but is otherwise indefinite.
Concerning Thomas O'Neill, doctor (General Medical Council 7429073).
Decision date: 19 February 2026 · Hearing started 18 February 2026 and ended 19 February 2026
In plain English
The MPTS tribunal found that Dr Thomas O'Neill's fitness to practise was impaired by reason of his conviction and ordered that his name be erased from the medical register. At Edinburgh Sheriff Court on 17 February 2025 he was convicted of communicating indecently with a 15-year-old child between November 2019 and May 2020 by sending sexually explicit messages and intimate images, and was made subject to the sex offender notification requirements. The tribunal found no evidence of insight or remediation and imposed an immediate order so that the suspension takes effect at once.
Charges
On 17 February 2025, at Edinburgh Sheriff Court, Dr O'Neill was convicted that, between 1 November 2019 and 31 May 2020, being a person who had attained the age of 16 years, he coerced an older child (a 15-year-old) into looking at a sexual image and communicated indecently with the child for the purposes of obtaining sexual gratification or of humiliating, distressing or alarming them, by repeatedly communicating verbally in a sexualised manner, sending sexually explicit messages by telephone and social media, and sending intimate images of a penis to the child, contrary to Sections 33 and 34 of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009. He became subject to notification requirements under sections 80 and 82 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. On 27 March 2025 he was sentenced to a Community Payback Order with an 18-month supervision period. All three particulars were found proved on the basis of the Certificate of Conviction.
Findings
Dr O'Neill did not attend and was not represented. The Tribunal found that the conviction lay at the higher end of the spectrum of seriousness, noting that it concerned a sexual offence against a child and resulted in inclusion on the sex offenders register, that it involved premeditated behaviour, abuse of position, behaviour directed to a vulnerable person, and a reckless disregard for professional standards. It found no evidence of insight, remorse or remediation. The Tribunal concluded that he posed a high current and ongoing risk to all three limbs of the overarching objective and that his fitness to practise was impaired by reason of his conviction.
Mitigating and aggravating factors
Aggravating factors
Conviction of a sexual offence against a child; placement on the sex offenders register; premeditated behaviour; abuse of professional position; behaviour directed to a vulnerable person; reckless disregard for professional standards; no evidence of insight, remorse or remediation; offence connected to his role as a paediatrician.
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.