Mrs Emma Taylor-Erwin

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: Mrs Emma Taylor-Erwin

Teacher reference number: 9949361

Teacher's date of birth: 21 September 1977

Location teacher worked: Huddersfield, Yorkshire and The Humber

Date of professional conduct panel: 20 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 Mrs Emma Taylor-Erwin, formerly employed in Huddersfield, Yorkshire and The Humber.

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.

Mrs Emma Taylor- Erwin: Professional conduct panel meeting 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 5 Documents 5 Statement of Agreed Facts 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 15 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 18 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Emma Taylor-Erwin Teacher ref number: 9949361 Teacher date of birth: 21 September 1977 TRA reference: 24935 Date of determination: 20 January 2026 Former employer: The Mount School, Huddersfield Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 20 January 2026 by way of a virtual meeting, to consider the case of Mrs Emma Taylor-Erwin. The panel members were Mrs Joanne Arscott (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mrs Olayinka Oshoko (teacher panellist) and Mrs Alexandra Burton (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr James Corrish of Birketts LLP. In advance of the meeting, after taking into consideration the public interest and the interests of justice, the TRA agreed to a request from Mrs Taylor-Erwin that the allegations be considered without a hearing. Mrs Taylor-Erwin provided a signed statement of agreed facts admitting all the allegations as well as admitting unacceptable professional conduct, conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute and conviction of a relevant offence. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer Ms Sophie Allen, Mrs Taylor-Erwin, or any representative for Mrs Taylor-Erwin. The meeting took place in private by way of a virtual meeting. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of meeting dated 9 January 2026. It was alleged that Mrs Emma Taylor-Erwin was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that whilst working as a Class Teacher and/or the Curriculum Lead for Geography and/or History at The Mount School (“the School”): 1. In or around June 2019, she drove a motor vehicle whilst under the influence of alcohol. 2. In or around April 2018, she attended the School and/or taught lessons: a. Whilst under the influence of alcohol; and/or b. Smelling of alcohol 3. On or around 17 November 2023, she attended the School and/or taught lessons: a. Whilst under the influence of alcohol; and/or b. Smelling of alcohol 4. As a result of her conduct at paragraph 2(a) and/or 2(b) and/or 3(a) and/or 3(b), she was incapable of carrying out her duties either solely or in part due to alcohol consumption. It was further alleged that Mrs Emma Taylor-Erwin was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: 5. On 21 November 2024, she was convicted of two counts of failing to provide a specimen on 30 October 2024, contrary to section 7 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, in the course of an investigation into whether she had committed an offence under section 3A, 4, 5 or 5A. The panel noted that Mrs Taylor-Erwin admitted allegations 1 to 5 and that allegations 1 to 4 constituted unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute and that she admitted (in the case of allegation 5) having been convicted of a relevant offence, as set out in the statement of agreed facts signed by her on 27 November 2025. The panel also noted that Mrs Taylor-Erwin had admitted the allegations in her response to the Notice of Referral of 19 June 2025 although the wording of some of the allegations had since changed. 5 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 4 to 7 Section 2: Notice of Referral and response – pages 8 to 18 Section 3: Statement of Agreed Facts – pages 19 to 24 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 25 to 89 Section 5: Teacher documents – page 90 In addition, the panel agreed to insert the Notice of Meeting of 9 January 2026, which it had sight of, as pages 91-92. The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the mearing. In the consideration of this case, the panel had regard to the document Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession 2020, (the “Procedures”). Statement of Agreed Facts The panel considered a statement of agreed facts which was signed by Mrs Taylor-Erwin on 27 November 2025 and subsequently signed by the presenting officer on 9 December 2025 (the “Statement of Agreed Facts”). Decision and reasons The panel carefully considered the case and reached the following decision and reasons: In advance of the meeting the TRA agreed to a request from Mrs Taylor-Erwin for the allegations to be considered without a hearing. The panel had the ability to direct that the case be considered at a hearing if required in the interests of justice or in the public interest. The panel did not determine that such a direction was necessary or appropriate in this case. On 1 September 2009, Mrs Taylor-Erwin commenced employment at The Mount School (the “School”) as a Year 1 class teacher. In April 2018, two staff members at the School reported to the School that Mrs Taylor- Erwin allegedly had an alcoholic drink during school hours. 6 On 10 June 2019, the Local Authority Designated Officer (“LADO”) raised concerns to the School following disclosures which Individual A had raised in another school that Mrs Taylor-Erwin had allegedly driven under the influence of alcohol. On 17 November 2023 Individual B entered a class in which Mrs Taylor-Erwin was looking after pupils. It was alleged that Mrs Taylor-Erwin was under the influence of alcohol and smelt of alcohol. On 4 November 2024, Mrs Taylor-Erwin resigned from the School. On 21 November 2024, Mrs Taylor-Erwin was convicted at Huddersfield Magistrates’ Court for failing to provide specimens on 30 October 2024. On 18 December 2024, the matter was referred to the TRA. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: In its consideration of all allegations the panel noted Mrs Taylor-Erwin’s full admission of the allegations in the Statement of Agreed Facts and further noted her statement of 24 November 2025 that “I admit to the allegations and understand that my conduct was unacceptable and will amount to serious misconduct”. In respect of all the allegations, the panel scrutinised the entire bundle including the TRA’s documents concerning the investigations and the meetings of the School surrounding these allegations. The panel noted that the evidence within a lot of these documents was hearsay but considered that the evidence was relevant and formed part of the School’s investigations. The panel therefore admitted the hearsay evidence after careful consideration in each case but noted that the evidence should be considered carefully and cautiously, including in relation to the appropriate amount of weight to place on it. In relation to weight, the panel placed reasonable weight upon the full contents of the bundle. The panel recognised that Mrs Taylor-Erwin had chosen to admit to all the allegations and had not called into question the validity of any of the evidence, her having had sight of it. The panel carefully considered Mrs Taylor-Erwin’s statement dated 24 November 2025 in its consideration of all allegations. The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against you proved, for these reasons: 7 Whilst working as a Class Teacher and/or the Curriculum Lead for Geography and/or History at The Mount School (‘the School’): 1. In or around June 2019, you drove a motor vehicle whilst under the influence of alcohol. Mrs Taylor-Erwin admitted to allegation 1 in the Statement of Agreed Facts and in her response to the Notice of Referral. Notwithstanding this, the panel made a determination based on the facts available to it. It was clear that Mrs Taylor-Erwin was carrying out the role described, as a class teacher, at the School at the relevant time for all the allegations. The panel considered the chronological notes submitted by Individual B at the time which had been an attachment to the TRA referral. These notes set out that on 10 June 2019, the School received a call from Individual C that Individual A “had raised concerns at her school re ETE [whom the panel understood to be Mrs Taylor-Erwin] alcohol and driving under the influence. School called the police. said [REDACTED] was in the car with ETE when she was drunk” and that “[REDACTED]. ETE denied and said [REDACTED] set Individual A up to say these things”. The LADO was recorded as advising that Mrs Taylor-Erwin was not suitable to be a DSL. The notes continue that at the time Mrs Taylor-Erwin had denied, within the School’s investigations, the allegation and said that there had been another witness in the car who could swear that she had not been drinking. Mrs Taylor-Erwin was recorded as confirming that “she had once had a problem with drink in the past but had [REDACTED]” and that “[REDACTED]”. It was further recorded that on 11 June 2019 the LADO had informed the School that “[REDACTED]”. The chronology recorded that the outcome of the LADO investigation into this matter was that the allegation was “unsubstantiated” which the School’s TRA submission suggested meant that “there was insufficient identifiable evidence to prove or disprove the allegation. The term, therefore, does not imply guilt or innocence”. The panel had sight of a “Low-Lev