Ms Stephanie Louise Bright

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 Stephanie Louise Bright

Location teacher worked: Nottinghamshire, East Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel: 09 to 10 July 2025

Outcome type: No order made

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 Stephanie Louise Bright, formerly employed in Nottinghamshire, 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 Stephanie Louise Bright: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education July 2025 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 9 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 11 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Ms Stephanie Louise Bright TRA reference: 21071 Date of determination: 10 July 2025 Former employer: Woodthorpe Infants’ School, Nottinghamshire Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 9 July 2025 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Ms Stephanie Louise Bright (“Ms Bright”). The panel members were Mr Aidan Jenkins (teacher panellist – in the chair), Ms Rachel Curry (lay panellist) and Mr Gamel Byles (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mrs Carly Hagedorn of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Michael Bellis of Capsticks LLP solicitors. Ms Bright was not 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 proceedings dated 2 April 2025. It was alleged that Ms Bright was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: 1. On 7 February 2013, she was convicted at Nottingham and Newark Magistrates Court of driving a motor vehicle with excess alcohol, contrary to s.5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. 2. On 10 November 2016, she was convicted at Nottinghamshire Magistrates Court of driving a motor vehicle with excess alcohol, contrary to s.5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. In her response to the notice of proceedings, Ms Bright admitted the facts of the allegations but denied that she was guilty of 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 and key list of people– pages 2 to 4 Section 2: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 5 to 18 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 38 to 59 In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following: • Offer of employment dated 30 April 2008 – page 60 • Resignation email dated 1 September 2022 – page 61 • Email to Ms Bright dated 16 October 2023 – page 62 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing and the additional documents that the panel decided to admit. In the consideration of this case, the panel had regard to the document Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession 2020, (the “Procedures”). 5 Witnesses The TRA did not call any witnesses to give evidence at the hearing. 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 Bright was employed as a class teacher at Woodthorpe Infants’ School (“the School”) between 1 September 2008 and 22 July 2022. On 15 November 2012, Ms Bright was arrested on suspicion of driving a motor vehicle on a road whilst over the prescribed limit of alcohol. On 7 February 2013, Ms Bright was convicted at Nottingham and Newark Magistrates’ Court for driving a motor vehicle contrary to s.5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. On 25 October 2016, Ms Bright was arrested on suspicion of driving a motor vehicle on a road whilst over the prescribed limit of alcohol. On 10 November 2016, Ms Bright was convicted at Nottingham Magistrates Court for driving a motor vehicle contrary to s.5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. The presenting officer confirmed that the School was at least aware of Ms Bright’s second conviction and she continued to be employed as a teacher until 2022. It was noted by Ms Bright in her response to the notice of proceedings that “the driving incidents were 12 + 9 years ago and dealt with by both magistrates and school and the DBS said no case to answer in 2022 and not related to school in any way.” The TRA became aware of her convictions following a referral on 5 September 2022 regarding a separate and unrelated matter in respect of Ms Bright. The panel was not aware of the details surrounding the separate and unrelated matter. 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 7 February 2013, you were convicted at Nottingham and Newark Magistrates Court of driving a motor vehicle with excess alcohol, contrary to s.5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. 6 Ms Bright admitted this allegation. Ms Bright pleaded guilty to the offence at Nottingham and Newark Magistrates' Court. The panel had sight of the memorandum of conviction dated 7 February 2013 entered in the register of the Nottingham and Newark Magistrates' Court which stated that “On 15/11/2012 at Lambley in the county of Nottinghamshire drove a motor vehicle, namely Vauxhall Astra [REDACTED] on a road, namely Main Street, Lambley, after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in your blood, namely 102 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood, exceeded the prescribed limit. Contrary to section 5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.” The memorandum of conviction stated that Ms Bright was to pay a £500 fine, a victim surcharge of £50 and costs of £85. Ms Bright was disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for 12 month(s) and such disqualification would be reduced by 3 months if by 6 September 2013 she “satisfactorily completes a course approved by the Secretary of State.” The panel also had sight of the Police National Computer (“PNC”) record whereby the conviction was detailed. The panel noted that it must not re-examine the facts of the case and were required to accept the conviction as conclusive proof of both the conviction and the facts necessarily implied by the conviction, unless exceptional circumstances apply. The panel found allegation 1 proved. 2. On 10 November 2016, you were convicted at Nottinghamshire Magistrates Court of driving a motor vehicle with excess alcohol, contrary to s.5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Ms Bright admitted this allegation. Ms Bright pleaded guilty to the offence at Nottinghamshire Magistrates' Court. The panel had sight of the memorandum of conviction dated 10 November 2016 entered in the register of the Nottinghamshire Magistrates' Court which stated that “On 25/10/2016 at Ransom Road, Nottingham, drove a motor vehicle, namely a Vauxhall Astra [REDACTED] on a road, namely Ransom Road, after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in your breath, namely 129 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, exceeded the prescribed limit. Contrary to section 5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.” The memorandum of conviction stated that Ms Bright was to complete a community order and she must “carry out unpaid work for 200 hours within the next twelve months.” Ms Bright was also ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £85 and costs of £85. 7 Ms Bright was disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for 3 year(s). Such disqualification would be reduced by 274 days if by 9 December 2018 she “satisfactorily completes a course approved by the Secretary of State.” The panel also had sight of the Police National Computer (“PNC”) record whereby the conviction was detailed. Again, the panel noted that it must not re-examine the facts of the case and were required to accept the conviction as conclusive proof of both the conviction and the facts necessarily implied by the conviction, unless exceptional circumstances apply. The panel found allegation 2 proved. Findings as to conviction of a relevant offence The panel first considered whether the conduct of Ms Bright, in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that, by reference to Part 2, Ms Bright 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 o not undermining fundamental British values, …, the rule of law,… The panel noted that the individual’s actions were relevant to teaching, working with children and working in an education setting as the panel considered that such repeated offending behaviour was of a serious nature and that teachers uphold public trust in the profession and are required to maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour within and outside of school. The panel did not consider that Ms Bright’s conduct maintained high standards of ethics and behaviour outside of school, especially in circumstances when the serious offence was repeated by Ms Bright for a second time. The panel noted that the behaviour involved in committing the offence could have had an impact on the safety and security of members of the public. The panel also took account of the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. The panel considered that Ms Bright’s behaviour in committing the offence could affect public confidence in the teaching profession, given the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the community. The panel noted that Ms Bright’s behaviour did not lead to a sentence of imprisonment, but the second conviction in 2016 did result in a community order for 200 hours of unpaid work. 8 The panel also considered the offences listed on pages 12 and 13 of the Advice. This was a case concerning an offence involving serious driving offences, particularly those involving alcohol… which the Advice states is likely to be considered a relevant offence. The panel considered the offences to be serious as driving a vehicle with excess alcohol and exceeding the prescribed limit could impact on the safety and security of members of the public. The panel noted that despite Ms Bright being convicted of the offence in 2013, she repeated her behaviour in 2016 and was convicted for a second time. The panel noted Ms Bright’s response to the notice of proceedings where she stated “the driving incidents were 12 + 9 years ago and dealt with by both magistrates and school and the DBS said no case to answer in 2022 and not related to school in any way.” The panel noted that the School was at least aware of Ms Bright’s second conviction in 2016 and she continued to be employed as a teacher until 2022. The TRA became aware of her convictions in 2022 following a referral regarding a separate and unrelated matter in respect of Ms Bright. The panel was not aware of the details surrounding the separate and unrelated matter. The panel was not provided with any evidence of mitigating circumstances in respect of the first conviction. The panel had sight of witness evidence from police officers, one of which had witnessed Ms Bright driving in a car park on 25 October 2016. The panel determined to admit this evidence as it was clearly relevant to the second allegation. The panel considered that it was fair to admit the police officer statements as they were not the sole and decisive evidence in respect of the allegation, no objection has been raised by Ms Bright as to their inclusion and the panel considered that the statements provided helpful circumstantial evidence in respect of the second allegation. One of the police officers stated that after approaching Ms Bright, she “burst into tears and said she had been drinking… [REDACTED]” Whilst the panel was sympathetic to the circumstances Ms Bright found herself in at the time of the second conviction, the panel did not consider that this took anything away from the seriousness of the repeated offending behaviour. The panel found that the seriousness of the offending behaviour that led to the convictions was relevant to Ms Bright’s ongoing suitability to teach. The panel considered that a finding that these convictions were for relevant offences was necessary to reaffirm clear standards of conduct so as to maintain public confidence in the teaching profession. 9 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State Given the panel’s findings in respect of convictions of relevant offences, it was necessary for the panel to go on to consider whether it would be appropriate to recommend the imposition of a prohibition order by the Secretary of State. In considering whether to recommend to the Secretary of State that a prohibition order should be made, the panel had to consider whether it would be an appropriate and proportionate measure, and whether it would be in the public interest to do so. Prohibition orders should not be given in order to be punitive, or to show that blame has been apportioned, although they are likely to have punitive effect. The panel had regard to the particular public interest considerations set out in the Advice and, having done so, found a number of them to be relevant in this case, namely, the protection of other members of the public, the maintenance of public confidence in the profession and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct. In the light of the panel’s findings against Ms Bright, which involved convictions of relevant offences for driving vehicles with excess alcohol exceeding the prescribed limit, there was a strong public interest consideration in maintaining public confidence in the profession. The panel considered that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Ms Bright was not treated with the utmost seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession. The panel was of the view that a strong public interest consideration in declaring proper standards of conduct in the profession was also present as the conduct found against Ms Bright was outside that which could reasonably be tolerated. In addition to the public interest considerations set out above, the panel went on to consider whether there was a public interest in retaining Ms Bright in the profession. The panel noted that there was no evidence to demonstrate her abilities as an educator. The panel considered carefully the seriousness of the behaviour, noting that the Advice states that the expectation of both the public and pupils, is that members of the teaching profession maintain an exemplary level of integrity and ethical standards at all times. The panel noted that whilst Ms Bright’s offending behaviour was serious, there was no evidence to suggest that she caused harm to members of the public, despite there being a real risk of doing so. In view of the clear public interest considerations that were present, the panel considered carefully whether or not it would be proportionate to impose a prohibition order, taking into account the effect that this would have on Ms Bright. 10 The panel took further account of the Advice, which suggests that a prohibition order may be appropriate if certain behaviours of a teacher have been proved. In the list of such behaviours, those that were relevant in this case were:  serious departure from the personal and professional conduct elements of the Teachers’ Standards;  actions or behaviours … that undermine fundamental British values of …, the rule of law, … Even though some of the behaviour found proved in this case indicated that a prohibition order would be appropriate, the panel went on to consider the mitigating factors. Mitigating factors may indicate that a prohibition order would not be appropriate or proportionate. There was no evidence to suggest that Ms Bright’s actions were not deliberate. There was no evidence to suggest that Ms Bright was acting under extreme duress, e.g. a physical threat or significant intimidation. There was no evidence to suggest that Ms Bright demonstrated exceptionally high standards in her personal and professional conduct or had contributed significantly to the education sector. The panel noted that no character references were provided in support of Ms Bright. The panel noted that Ms Bright entered guilty pleas in respect of her two convictions and admitted the TRA’s allegations at the earliest opportunity. The panel noted that Ms Bright had limited insight into the impact of her conduct. The panel acknowledged Ms Bright’s response to the notice of proceedings where she stated, “the driving incidents were 12 + 9 years ago and dealt with by both magistrates and school and the DBS said no case to answer in 2022 and not related to school in any way.” The panel did not have sight of the DBS ‘no case to answer’ decision. The panel acknowledged the passage of time since her last conviction (over 8 years ago). The panel noted that whilst Ms Bright repeated her offending behaviour for a second time in 2016, there was no evidence to suggest that she had since replicated her behaviour since 2016. The panel had sight of Ms Bright’s PNC record printed on 27 February 2023, setting out her two convictions. The PNC print out did not show any further convictions since the 2016 conviction. The panel noted that the School was at least aware of Ms Bright’s second conviction in 2016 and she continued to be employed as a teacher until she resigned in 2022. In that time, Ms Bright was responsible for pupils. The School did not consider her offending behaviour to be so serious to refer the matter to the TRA back in 2016. 11 The panel noted that the police officer who had witnessed Ms Bright driving on 25 October 2016, stated that after approaching Ms Bright, she “burst into tears and said she had been drinking… [REDACTED]” The panel acknowledged that her immediate emotional response to her behaviour demonstrated some remorse for her offending behaviour in 2016. The panel was sympathetic to the circumstances Ms Bright found herself in at the time of the second conviction. The presenting officer acknowledged that Ms Bright is now retired from teaching and is drawing her teacher’s pension. The panel first considered whether it would be proportionate to conclude this case with no recommendation of prohibition, considering whether the publication of the findings made by the panel would be sufficient. The panel was of the view that, applying the standard of the ordinary intelligent citizen, the recommendation of no prohibition order would be both a proportionate and an appropriate response. Given that the nature and severity of the behaviour were at the less serious end of a possible spectrum and, having considered the mitigating factors that were present, the panel determined that a recommendation for a prohibition order would not be appropriate in this case. The panel considered that the publication of the adverse findings it had made was sufficient to send an appropriate message to the teacher as to the standards of behaviour that are not acceptable, and the publication would meet the public interest requirement of declaring proper standards of the profession. Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State I have given very careful consideration to this case and to the recommendation of the panel in respect of sanction. In considering this case, I have also given very careful attention to the Advice that the Secretary of State has published concerning the prohibition of teachers. In this case, the panel has found all of the allegations proven and found that those proven facts amount to a relevant conviction. The panel has made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that Ms Stephanie Louise Bright should not be the subject of a prohibition order. The panel has recommended that the finding of a relevant conviction should be published and that such an action is proportionate and in the public interest. In particular, the panel has found that Ms Bright is in breach of the following standards: 12  Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by o not undermining fundamental British values, …, the rule of law,… The panel has found that the conduct of Ms Bright did not maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour outside of school and has noted that she repeated the serious offence of driving with excess alcohol. I have to determine whether the imposition of a prohibition order is proportionate and in the public interest. In considering that for this case, I have considered the overall aim of a prohibition order which is to protect pupils and to maintain public confidence in the profession. I have considered the extent to which a prohibition order in this case would achieve that aim taking into account the impact that it will have on the individual teacher. I have also asked myself whether a less intrusive measure, such as the published finding of a relevant conviction, would itself be sufficient to achieve the overall aim. I have to consider whether the consequences of such a publication are themselves sufficient. I have considered therefore whether or not prohibiting Ms Bright, and the impact that will have on the teacher, is proportionate and in the public interest. In this case, I have considered the extent to which a prohibition order would protect children and safeguard pupils. The panel has observed that “the behaviour involved in committing the offence could have had an impact on the safety and security of members of the public”, but the panel has not raised concerns regarding the safeguarding of pupils. I have also taken into account the panel’s comments on insight and remorse. The panel has noted that “Ms Bright entered guilty pleas in respect of her two convictions and admitted the TRA’s allegations at the earliest opportunity” and has commented that “Ms Bright had limited insight into the impact of her conduct.” The panel has also commented that “her immediate emotional response to her behaviour demonstrated some remorse for her offending behaviour in 2016.” I have therefore given this element some weight in reaching my decision. I have gone on to consider the extent to which a prohibition order would maintain public confidence in the profession. The panel has observed that “Ms Bright’s behaviour in committing the offence could affect public confidence in the teaching profession, given the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the community.” I am particularly mindful of the finding of convictions for driving a vehicle with excess alcohol in this case and the impact that such a finding has on the reputation of the profession. I have had to consider that the public has a high expectation of professional standards of all teachers and that the public might regard a failure to impose a prohibition order as a failure to uphold those high standards. In weighing these considerations, I have had to 13 consider the matter from the point of view of an “ordinary intelligent and well-informed citizen.” I have considered whether the publication of a finding of a relevant conviction, in the absence of a prohibition order, can itself be regarded by such a person as being a proportionate response to the misconduct that has been found proven in this case. I have also considered the impact of a prohibition order on Ms Bright herself. The panel has commented, “There was no evidence to suggest that Ms Bright demonstrated exceptionally high standards in her personal and professional conduct or had contributed significantly to the education sector.” The panel also noted that “Ms Bright is now retired from teaching and is drawing her teacher’s pension.” A prohibition order would prevent Ms Bright from returning to teaching. A prohibition order would also clearly deprive the public of her contribution to the profession for the period that it is in force if she were to return to teaching. In this case, I have placed considerable weight on the panel’s comment, “Given that the nature and severity of the behaviour were at the less serious end of a possible spectrum and, having considered the mitigating factors that were present, the panel determined that a recommendation for a prohibition order would not be appropriate in this case.” I have also placed considerable weight on the panel’s comment that “whilst Ms Bright repeated her offending behaviour for a second time in 2016, there was no evidence to suggest that she had since replicated her behaviour since 2016.” For these reasons, I have concluded that a prohibition order is not proportionate or in the public interest. I consider that the publication of the findings made would be sufficient to send an appropriate message to the teacher as to the standards of behaviour that were not acceptable and that the publication would meet the public interest requirement of declaring proper standards of the profession. Decision maker: David Oatley Date: 11 July 2025 This decision is taken by the decision maker named above on behalf of the Secretary of State. 14