Mr Steven Ward

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 Steven Ward

Teacher reference number: 3654810

Teacher's date of birth: 1 January 1985

Location teacher worked: Nottingham, East Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel: 12 January 2026 to 15 January 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 Steven Ward formerly employed in Nottingham, East 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.

Mr Steven Ward: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education January 2026 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Witnesses 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 5 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 13 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 17 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Steven Ward Teacher ref number: 3654810 Teacher date of birth: 1 January 1985 TRA reference: 23984 Date of determination: 15 January 2026 Former employer: Arnbrook Primary School, Nottingham Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 12 to 15 January 2026 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Steven Ward. The panel members were Mr Ian Hylan (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mr Tony Coyne (lay panellist) and Ms Wendy Shannon (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mrs Samantha Cass of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr James Lloyd of Mountford Chambers. Mr Steven Ward was present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of hearing dated 1 September 2025. It was alleged that Mr Ward was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that while working as a Teacher at the Southwark Primary School: 1. On 9 November 2023, during a lesson, he: a. consumed alcohol on one or more occasion/s; b. was under the influence of alcohol during school hours. 2. On 10 November 2023, he: a. consumed alcohol on one or more occasion/s during a lesson; and/or b. was under the influence of alcohol during school hours. 3. On 13 November 2023, he was under the influence of alcohol during school hours. Mr Ward denied allegations 1(a), 1(b), 2(a), 2(b) and 3. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Notice of hearing and response – pages 2 to 13 Section 2: TRA witness statements and exhibits – pages 14 to 190 Section 3: All other TRA documents – pages 191 to 267 The panel also had sight of the notice of hearing dated 1 September 2025. In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following: A screenshot of a text message exchange between Mr Ward and Witness B – page 268. The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing and the additional document that the panel decided to admit. In the consideration of this case, the panel had regard to the 2020 Procedures. 5 Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called by the presenting officer: Witness A – [REDACTED] Witness B – [REDACTED] Witness C – [REDACTED] Witness D – [REDACTED] Mr Ward also gave oral evidence. 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 Ward commenced his employment at Southwark Primary School (the “School”) as a trainee in September 2014. Mr Ward was subsequently employed as a qualified teacher in 2015. On 6 November 2023, Witness D and Witness C commenced their [REDACTED]. On the afternoon of 9 November 2023 and on 10 November 2023, Witness D and Witness C were placed with Mr Ward to observe Mr Ward teach and assist with the pupils in the classes that Mr Ward was responsible for covering. On 10 November 2023, Witness D and Witness C reported to Individual A, [REDACTED] that they had seen Mr Ward drinking alcohol on 9 and 10 November 2023. On 13 November 2023, Mr Ward and Individual B, [REDACTED] had a scheduled in- person meeting at 8:30am. Mr Ward had a subsequent in-person meeting at 9:00am with Witness B, Individual B, Individual C, [REDACTED] and Individual D. It was alleged that Mr Ward was under the influence of alcohol during both of these meetings. On 1 July 2024, the matter was referred to the TRA. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: 6 While working as a Teacher at the Southwark Primary School: 1. On 9 November 2023, during a lesson, you: a. consumed alcohol on one or more occasion/s; b. were under the influence of alcohol during school hours Mr Ward denied allegations 1(a) and 1(b). The panel considered Witness A’s written statement dated 23 February 2025 and exhibits which stated that he investigated allegations regarding Mr Ward having consumed alcohol during a lesson on 9 and 10 November 2023 and having been under the influence of alcohol on 9,10 and 13 November 2023. Witness A’s role was to coordinate the collection of all relevant evidence, including witness interviews, preparing internal documents, and communications with Mr Ward. Witness A had interviewed Witness C and Witness D who reported that they had seen Mr Ward drinking from a blue Brewdog Punk IPA looking can and hiding drink in his bag and consuming a mint after each sip. The panel considered Witness A’s oral evidence, which was that, as part of Witness A’s investigation, no physical evidence of alcoholic or non-alcoholic drinks had been recovered. The panel considered Witness B’s written statement dated 4 April 2025 which stated that Witness C and Witness D had informed him that they had seen Mr Ward drinking alcohol during lessons on 9 and 10 November 2023. The panel considered Witness B’s oral evidence which was that Mr Ward did not deny consuming alcohol at that time or deny the allegations and stated that he would “trust the investigation process”. The panel noted that Witness B had not ever seen Mr Ward consume alcohol but had smelt alcohol on his breath. The panel considered the written and oral evidence of Witness C who explained that she and Witness D were [REDACTED] at the School from 6 to 10 November 2023 (inclusive). The panel considered Witness C’s written statement dated 10 November 2023 which stated that on 9 November 2023, she saw Mr Ward repeatedly “drinking a bright blue can out of his bag” and that he put a mint in his mouth immediately after drinking. Witness C’s statement further stated that Mr Ward “continued to drink from the can for the duration of the afternoon, while taking a mint after every drink.” The panel then considered Witness D’s written statement dated 25 March 2025 which corroborated with Witness C’s statement. The panel also noted that Witness C and Witness D’s descriptions of what they observed was consistent with their account a 7 month later as part of the School’s investigation and again in their oral evidence during the hearing. The panel further noted the oral evidence of Witness C that she had seen Mr Ward drinking from a bright blue can with black writing written on the side of the can which she saw Mr Ward take and drink from his bag next to his desk followed by a mint after each mouthful. Witness C stated that she believed Mr Ward would drink from this can around every 5 minutes on average but that she could not be sure of timings. The panel noted that Witness C had observed Mr Ward drinking from a can from two different viewpoints and attached weight to the fact that she had sought to obtain further evidence, including noting if Mr Ward repeated the behaviour the following day and by seeking Witness D’s opinion before formally reporting her concerns. The panel considered the oral evidence of Witness D which was that he had seen Mr Ward drinking from a can from his bag around every 15 minutes or so and that he had found this to be unusual behaviour as he would have expected teachers to drink from a coffee cup or bottle of water. Witness D also stated that Mr Ward’s behaviour was unusual as he would have a mint from what looked like a tin of Smints which he took from his pocket after each swig of his drink. The panel noted that Witness D could not be completely sure on 9 November 2023 that Mr Ward was consuming alcohol and that it wasn’t until the following day that he became sure that what he had seen the day before was Mr Ward consuming alcohol. The panel considered that there were some discrepancies between the accounts of Witness C and Witness D. However, the panel found that these were minor discrepancies which did not impact upon the substance of the allegation and witnesses accounts and considered that they were not concerning and made it more likely than not that their accounts were independently observed and reported. The panel considered Mr Ward’s view which was that efforts had been made by the School, in particular Witness B, to manage him out of the School. Further, the panel was provided with no evidence, including from Mr Ward, to support any contention that Witness C or Witness D had any reason to be dishonest or collude regarding their observations. The panel found Witness C and Witness D to be credible witnesses and that it was more probable than not that they had observed Mr Ward drinking from a can of Brewdog Punk IPA. The panel concluded that Witness C and Witness D had not colluded in providing their evidence regarding Mr Ward’s actions. The panel considered Mr Ward’s oral evidence which was that he denied drinking alcohol on 9 November 2023 during a lesson but that it was a very realistic possibility that he put a can on his desk although he denied that this was alcohol or to having hidden the can. The panel considered Mr Ward’s comments in the School’s investigation which were that drinking at work was “not something that [he] would ever do”. 8 The panel considered that Mr Ward was, on the balance of probabilities based on the