Ms Julia Leith

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: Ms Julia Leith

Teacher reference number: 8848483

Teacher's date of birth: 3 September 1965

Location teacher worked: Leicester, East Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel: 19 January 2026 to 23 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 Ms Julia Leith formerly employed in Leicester, 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.

Ms Julia Leith: Professional conduct panel hearing 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 17 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 21 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Ms Julia Leith Teacher ref number: 8848483 Teacher date of birth: 3 September 1965 TRA reference: 17106 Date of determination: 23 January 2026 Former employer: Judgemeadow Community College, Leicester (the “College”) and Robert Smyth Academy, Market Harborough (the “School”) Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 19 to 23 January 2026 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Ms Leith. The panel members were Mr Alan Wells (former teacher panellist – in the chair), Mrs Julie Wells (teacher panellist) and Mrs Nicola Fernandes (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Miss Elizabeth Gilbert of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Matilda Heselton of Browne Jacobson LLP solicitors. Ms Leith was present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public, save that portions of the hearing were heard in private, and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Proceedings dated 5 November 2025 It was alleged that Ms Leith was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that: 1. She acted in an inappropriate and/or unprofessional manner, specifically; a) Whilst employed at the Judgemeadow Community College between June 2017 and December 2017, on or around 21st September 2017, she: (i) was present at the College after consuming alcohol and/or smelling of alcohol; (ii) her conduct at allegation 1(b)(i) above affected her behaviour and/or ability to undertake her duties to the College; b) Whilst employed at the Robert Smyth Academy between August and December 2018, on or around 7th December 2018, she; i) was present at the School after consuming alcohol and/or smelling of alcohol; ii) her conduct at allegation 1(c)(i) above affected her behaviour and/or ability to undertake her duties to the School Ms Leith denied the facts of the allegations and that her conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology – page 7 Section 2: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 9 to 36 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 38 to 45 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 47 to 79 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 81 to 265 5 The panel also received the following documents: • Case management hearing decisions; • Application for hearing to be in private; • Application for hearsay evidence to be admitted; • Application to amend the allegations; and • [REDACTED] The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the above documents, in advance of the hearing. In the consideration of this case, the panel had regard to the document ‘Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession’ 2018 (the “Procedures”). Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called by the presenting officer: • Witness A; and • Witness B. Ms Leith 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. Ms Leith was employed by the College between June 2017 and December 2017. Ms Leith was employed as a teacher by an agency, Now Education, and worked as a supply teacher at the School between 28 August 2018 and 7 December 2018. 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: 6 1. You acted in an inappropriate and/or unprofessional manner, specifically; a) Whilst employed at the Judgemeadow Community College between June 2017 and December 2017, on or around 21st September 2017, you: (i) were present at the College after consuming alcohol and/or smelling of alcohol; (ii) your conduct at allegation 1(a)(i) above affected your behaviour and/or ability to undertake your duties to the College; Ms Leith denied allegations 1(a)(i) and 1(a)(ii). Witness A stated in his written statement that: • At around 6:30pm/6:45pm during an open evening in September 2017, Person A, a member of staff at the College, approached him with “concerns over the behaviour and mannerisms of Ms Leith” as she had been witnessed as “disorientated and slurring her speech”. • Following the concerns, he went to Ms Leith’s classroom to see “if she was ok”. Throughout their conversation which was “approximately 1 hour long”, Ms Leith spoke and acted in an “intoxicated manner and smelt of alcohol”, was “erratic, irrational, emotional and confused” and her speech was “slurred”. • When Witness A asked Ms Leith whether she had consumed alcohol, Ms Leith stated that “she had after school” and “made reference to [REDACTED] staff (another school)”. As a result, Witness A considered that Ms Leith “was drunk and therefore could not engage with the open evening”. • Person B “kept coming in and out of the classroom” to support Witness A as he had been informed of Ms Leith’s condition. [REDACTED] when efforts were made to arrange transport, and she was “unable to tell” Witness A where her bag was and could only provide her own mobile number as a contact number. As such, Person B tried to contact Ms Leith’s next of kin. • Subsequently, “two members of staff arrived” to take Ms Leith home and a vehicle was arranged to collect Ms Leith from the back of the College so that Ms Leith “did not have to pass through the open evening events”. • Witness A stated in his oral evidence that, during his conversation with Ms Leith in her classroom on 21 September 2017, Ms Leith gave multiple reasons for being upset, including [REDACTED] that she had “consumed alcohol after school”. Witness A was asked if Ms Leith had referred to [REDACTED], as this was an explanation Ms Leith has subsequently given for her behaviour. Witness A confirmed that [REDACTED] 7 Following a preliminary application from the presenting officer, the panel admitted the hearsay evidence of three staff members present on 21 September 2017, each having provided written statements to the College dated 23 September 2017: • Person A stated that Ms Leith “seemed wobbly” at around 7:45am on 21 September 2017 and was “not walking well” and did “not speak as usual”. Person A further stated that she knew Ms Leith was “stressed about her observation period 2 that day” and that Ms Leith “[REDACTED]” but Person A was “concerned” that Ms Leith’s “walking and speech were not her usual way” and she “wondered about drink at that stage”. However, Person A stated that Ms Leith “seemed better” after the observation and “less erratic”. • Person A stated that Ms Leith left the College after school to go home and “collect materials” and she did not return until “about 5:15” when they had students ready to “help set up” for an open evening. Person A stated that Ms Leith’s “speech was slurred”, that she could not “make eye contact” and she was “very unsteady on her feet”. Person A stated that she “was concerned about a possible smell of alcohol” and it was her belief that Ms Leith “had been drinking” [REDACTED] • Person B stated that he went to see Ms Leith, alongside Witness A, when concerns were raised by Person A about Ms Leith being “unwell”. Person B stated that it “quickly became apparent” that Ms Leith was unwell and did not know “why or who” they were and was “showing signs of her been [sic] drinking” as she found it “very difficult to talk” without “slurring or repeating what she had just said”. • Person B stated that he and Witness A decided to contact Ms Leith’s home, but Ms Leith provided her own number without realising and explained [REDACTED]. Person B further stated that he arranged with another member of staff to drive her home and that his personal opinion was that Ms Leith “had been drinking which had caused her to become unwell”. • Person C stated that he saw Ms Leith “coming from the corridor” and he “noticed that she was not walking straight”. The panel placed weight on the hearsay evidence, as each of the statements were consistent with each other and with Witness A’s evidence regarding the sequence of events and Ms Leith’s behaviour on 21 September 2017. Ms Leith provided a written witness statement of Person K, who stated in his written statement dated 29 July 2024 that whenever Ms Leith [REDACTED]. The panel considered a letter dated 16 July 2018, which was sent from Ms Leith to the presenting officer, in response to the TRA’s investigation into the allegations against her. Ms Leith stated the following: 8 • On 21 September 2017, she “came to work as normal” at the College but was “anxious” because she had an observation with an extremely disruptive class and had “stayed up until 3am checking everything through”; • [REDACTED] • Ms Leith helped set up for an open evening but went home to collect “flags, tablecloths and other bits and bobs”. • [REDACTED] • Additionally, whilst at home, Ms Leith [REDACTED] “made a small gin and tonic for [REDACTED]” and