Catherine Stephenson
Introduction
Catherine Stephenson was an assistant headteacher and Deputy Safeguarding Lead at Snowflake School in London — not to be confused with Carrie Stephenson, the Colorado school administrator covered separately on this site. On 16 April 2024 she was seen buying a bottle of wine while late for work, and a more-than-half-empty bottle was later found in her bag on school premises. In June 2026 a professional conduct panel of the Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) found all five particulars of the allegation proved and recommended her prohibition from teaching. The decision maker for the Secretary of State agreed: Stephenson is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot apply to have the order set aside until 24 June 2028 at the earliest.
Background Information
According to the TRA decision, Stephenson joined Snowflake School in September 2017 as a lead teacher and was promoted to Assistant Headteacher and Deputy Safeguarding Lead on 2 November 2020. Staff were expected on site before 8:30am, when pupils arrive; on the morning of 16 April 2024 she messaged a staff WhatsApp group to say she would be late and arrived after 9am. That morning, several staff reported concerns about her behaviour, including repeated trips to the toilet carrying her bag. She was suspended the same day, dismissed after failing to attend a disciplinary hearing on 14 May 2024, and the school referred her to the TRA on 6 June 2024.
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Adjudicated vs. alleged. The findings below come from a Teaching Regulation Agency professional conduct panel applying the civil standard — proof on the balance of probabilities — and published as a regulatory record, not criminal convictions. Stephenson made no admissions: she did not respond to the Notice of Hearing, was not present at the hearing and was not represented. The panel nonetheless found every particular proved: that on 16 April 2024, while employed at Snowflake School, she purchased alcohol during hours she was required to be working, brought it onto school premises, consumed it on the premises and during school hours, and was under the influence of alcohol while at work.
A colleague’s witness statement recorded that she “had gone to the off licence this morning and had seen Catherine purchasing a bottle of wine”, and a contemporaneous statement noted that another staff member had “observed Catherine going to a nearby shop before the school day begun”. When a senior colleague raised it by phone that day, Stephenson said the wine was for her and her partner to have with dinner, and confirmed the purchase — supporting the panel’s finding on the consistency of the accounts that she purchased alcohol during working hours (allegation 1(a)). Asked to confirm she had drunk none of it and that the bottle in her bag was still full, “Ms Stephenson confirmed both”, which the panel treated as an admission that she had brought the alcohol onto school premises (1(b)).
At around 11:52am, a colleague asked to look in Stephenson’s blue backpack found, underneath clothing, a screw-top bottle of white wine that was “more than half empty”. She had earlier been seen leaving the office for the toilet with the bag more than five times, gone three to five minutes each time. No one directly saw her drink. But the panel — noting that “it is not possible to buy a half-full bottle of wine”, that there was no plausible innocent explanation, and that Stephenson had had ample opportunity to challenge the account and never offered one — concluded she had consumed about half the bottle between roughly 9am and midday, on the premises and during school hours (1(c), 1(d)), and that she “must have been under the influence of alcohol while at work” (1(e)).
The panel found the conduct breached the Teachers’ Standards and the school’s disciplinary procedure, which defined gross misconduct as “being under the influence of…alcohol during working hours”. As Assistant Headteacher and Deputy Safeguarding Lead, responsible for pupils with significant needs, her functions and decision-making “would likely have been impaired”; the panel concluded “there was a real safeguarding risk to pupils”. Her conduct “fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession”, amounting to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute.
Public Reaction and Consequences
No character references were provided, and the panel noted earlier concerns on file which, “although did not indicate a significant pattern of behaviour, suggested that Ms Stephenson’s actions on 16 April 2024 were not out of character”. Given her “complete lack of engagement in this process and the School’s disciplinary process”, the panel had “no evidence before it of any insight, remorse or mitigating factors”, and saw “a potential risk of future repetition”. Against that, it found this was “a one-time incident that occurred during the course of a morning” and that there was “no evidence that any pupils or teachers were in fact harmed” — so while prohibition was proportionate and appropriate, the panel recommended the order carry a two-year review period.
Current Status
The panel’s determination is dated 19 June 2026, from a virtual hearing held on 17 to 19 June 2026. Decision maker Stuart Blomfield, deciding for the Secretary of State on 24 June 2026, endorsed the recommendation, giving considerable weight to the absence of insight or remorse and to the finding of drinking alcohol on the school site during the school day. Stephenson is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. She may apply for the order to be set aside, but not until 24 June 2028 — two years from the date of the order — and this is not an automatic right; a panel would consider any application. She has a right of appeal to the High Court within 28 days of being given notice of the order. The decision was published in June 2026.
Impact on Their Career/Life
The prohibition order ends Stephenson’s teaching career in England, compounding the dismissal that had already removed her in May 2024 from the senior safeguarding role she had held since 2020. The published TRA decision is a permanent public record under her name. Because the panel found no evidence of insight or remorse, the two-year review gate offers only the possibility of relief: any application from June 2028 would go to a fresh panel, with no guarantee the order would be lifted.