Mr Alexander Webb

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 Alexander Webb

Teacher reference number: 1753489

Teacher's date of birth: 25 February 1996

Location teacher worked: Stafford, West Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel: 02 June 2026

Outcome type: Prohibition order

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 Alexander Webb formerly employed in Stafford, West Midlands.

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.

OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Mr Alexander Webb: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education June 2026 2 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 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 12 3 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Alexander Webb Teacher ref number: 1753489 Teacher date of birth: 25 February 1996 TRA reference: 20299 Date of determination: 2 June 2026 Former employer: [REDACTED], Stafford Introduction A professional conduct panel (‘the panel’) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (‘the TRA’) convened on 2 June 2026 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Alexander Webb. The panel members were Mrs Patricia Hunt (former teacher panellist – in the chair), Mr Peter Whitelock (lay panellist) and Mrs Jane Gotschel (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Abigail Hubert of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Alecsandra Manning-Rees of Five St Andrew’s Hill chambers, instructed by Kingsley Napley LLP solicitors. Mr Alexander Webb was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 11 February 2026. It was alleged that Mr Webb was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: 1. On 5 December 2024, he was convicted of: a. Six counts of sexual activity with a child, b. Three counts of sexual communication with a child, c. Five counts of making indecent photographs of a child. In Mr Webb’s response to the notice of proceedings dated 12 February 2026 he admitted to the facts of allegations 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c). Mr Webb further admitted that those facts 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, list of key people and anonymised pupil list – pages 3 to 4 Section 2: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 5 to 12 Section 3: TRA exhibits – pages 13 to 38 Section 4: Teacher documents – pages 39 to 43 The panel also received a bundle of email correspondence in relation to the reporting restrictions for the case. The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing. In the consideration of this case, the panel had regard to the Procedures. Witnesses No witnesses were called to give oral evidence at the hearing. 5 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. Mr Webb commenced employment at [REDACTED] (‘the School’) on 1 September 2018. On 28 May 2021, a referral was made to the Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (‘MASH’) alleging that a [REDACTED] pupil at the School was in a sexual relationship with [REDACTED] teacher, Mr Webb. On the same day, Mr Webb was arrested and interviewed by the police. Mr Webb was interviewed by the police for a second time on 6 February 2023. On 5 December 2024, Mr Webb pleaded guilty to and was convicted of six counts of sexual activity with a child, three counts of sexual communication with a child and five counts of making indecent photographs of a child. On 13 February 2025, Mr Webb was sentenced at Stafford Crown Court to a custodial sentence of 5 years and 7 months. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against you proved, for these reasons: 1. On 5 December 2024, you were convicted of: a. Six counts of sexual activity with a child, b. Three counts of sexual communication with a child, c. Five counts of making indecent photographs of a child. The panel considered the document Teacher misconduct: The prohibition of teachers, which is referred to as ‘the Advice’. Page 8 of the Advice 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 been provided with a copy of the certificate of conviction from Stafford Crown Court, which detailed that Mr Webb had been convicted on 5 December 2024 of 6 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE six counts of sexual activity with a child, three counts of sexual communication with a child, and five counts of making indecent photographs of a child. The panel noted the certificate of conviction stated that Mr Webb had pleaded guilty to the offences. In respect of the allegations, Mr Webb was sentenced at Stafford Crown Court on 13 February 2025 to 5 years and 7 months imprisonment to run concurrently. In addition, he was placed on the Sex Offenders Register for life and made subject to a Sexual Harm Prevention Order for 10 years and a Restraining Order for 10 years. The panel also noted that Mr Webb had admitted the particulars of allegations 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c) as set out in his response to the notice of proceedings dated 12 February 2026. Mr Webb’s response further recorded that his admission to the allegations was also shown by entering a guilty plea in the criminal proceedings at the earliest opportunity. The panel reviewed Mr Webb’s admission alongside the evidence before it, including the certificate of conviction and the police report. Having considered the admitted facts and the supporting evidence, the panel found allegations 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c) proved. Findings as to conviction of a relevant offence Having found all of the allegations proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of those proved allegations amounted to conviction of a relevant offence. In doing so, the panel had regard to the Advice. The panel first considered whether the conduct of Mr Webb, in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that, by reference to Part 2, Mr Webb 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  treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position  having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions  showing tolerance of and respect for the rights of others  Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach… 7 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE  Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities. The panel noted that Mr Webb’s actions were relevant to teaching, working with children and working in an education setting, particularly as the police report set out that the allegations involved a sexual relationship with a pupil at the School and also the original communications with the pupil were carried out via their School email accounts. The panel noted that the behaviour involved in committing the offence could have had an impact on the safety and/or security of pupils and/or members of the public. The panel also took account of the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. The panel noted that the behaviour exhibited by Mr Webb would be regarded as wholly unacceptable by members of the public. Not only did Mr Webb’s behaviour fall significantly shorty of the standards expected of a teacher, but he was also in a position of trust and fundamentally breached that trust. Therefore, the panel considered that Mr Webb’s behaviour in committing the offences could affect public confidence in the teaching profession, particularly given the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the community. The panel noted that Mr Webb’s behaviour ultimately led to a sentence of imprisonment, which was indicative of the seriousness of the offences committed. The Advice states: “it is likely that a conviction for any offence that led to a term of imprisonment, including any suspended sentence, will be considered “a relevant offence.”” The panel also considered the offences listed on pages 12 and 13 of the Advice. This was a case concerning offences involving sexual activity with a child; sexual communication with a child; and making indecent images of a child, which the Advice states are likely to be considered “relevant offences”. The panel found that the seriousness of the offending behaviour that led to the conviction was relevant to Mr Webb’s ongoing suitability to teach. The panel considered that a finding that these convictions were relevant offences 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 offenc