Christopher Small
Introduction
Christopher Small is a former teacher whose nine-year career ended in an indefinite prohibition from teaching after a Teaching Regulation Agency panel found he had been under the influence of alcohol on school premises, been sent home from a residential trip, and lied to a job interview panel about a drink-driving conviction. A professional conduct panel convened at Cheylesmore House in Coventry from 3 to 6 November 2025, sitting in his absence. On 10 November 2025 the decision maker, acting for the Secretary of State, prohibited him from teaching in England indefinitely, with a four-year review period.
Background Information
Small taught at the Nicholas Chamberlaine School in Bedworth from September 2014 to August 2023, where his employment ceased on 31 August 2023. Two days earlier, on 29 August 2023, he had begun a role as an Alternative Provisions Teacher at Charnwood College in Loughborough. That job lasted only days: his Charnwood employment ended on 6 September 2023, the same day as the second of two incidents on the college premises. The decision records his date of birth as 7 January 1990. He did not attend the panel hearing and was not represented, and no admissions were made.
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Drink-driving convictions and alcohol on school premises.
The panel found seven allegations proved. Two concerned convictions for driving with excess alcohol, contrary to section 5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988: Leicester Magistrates’ Court convicted Small on 7 March 2019 and again on 23 September 2023. The memorandum and certificate of conviction were treated as conclusive proof. The 2023 conviction followed days after the Charnwood incidents; the panel noted a breath reading of 70 micrograms per 100 millilitres, twice the legal limit, and a 36-month disqualification. One passage of the decision misdates the 2023 conviction, but the allegation and chronology place it after the September incidents.
The dishonesty finding arose from his Charnwood job interview. Small declared a drink-driving offence but said it had not led to a conviction, when in fact the 2019 conviction had ended in a £200 fine after a guilty plea. An interviewer’s annotated copy of the form, a contemporaneous document given significant weight, recorded the account that the incident “did not lead to conviction”. Applying the test in Ivey v Genting Casinos, the panel found he knew he had been convicted and that ordinary decent people would regard the concealment as dishonest, because it hid information relevant to the school’s safeguarding duties; it found the conduct both dishonest and a lack of integrity.
In total, the panel found he was under the influence of alcohol at school three times. On or around 5 September 2023, witnesses described Small intoxicated at a pastoral meeting, sipping a clear liquid smelling of vodka from a Lucozade bottle, and one smelt alcohol on his breath. On 6 September a witness described him as erratic, flirtatious, dancing and “unintelligible and unsteady”, with pupils asking whether he was drunk; a safeguarding officer called intoxication while supervising pupils a safeguarding risk. On a residential trip to Gresham’s Boarding School from 12 July 2023, where he was responsible for eight pupils, colleagues described slurred speech and fumbling use of a knife and fork at dinner, and a colleague was sent to drive him home after he locked himself in his room leaving pupils unattended. The panel found not proven, however, the allegations that he vaped in a classroom or carried a flask of alcohol, and did not find lack of insight into earlier concerns.
The panel found the conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct likely to bring the profession into disrepute, breaching the Teachers’ Standards and Keeping Children Safe in Education. It treated the 2023 conviction as a relevant offence but not the 2019 one, noting the vehicle had been moved only a short distance; the decision maker put that matter entirely from her mind. Twelve character references were given limited weight, none engaging with the substance of the case. Seeing a significant lack of insight and a significant risk of repetition, it recommended prohibition with immediate effect and a four-year review.
Public Reaction and Consequences
The documented reaction is regulatory rather than journalistic. The outcome was published on GOV.UK on 26 November 2025 as part of the Teaching Regulation Agency’s routine publication of panel decisions, and no substantial press coverage has been attached to the case in the record. The consequences fell immediately on his employment: Charnwood College had already ended his contract on 6 September 2023, the day of the second incident, and his registration as a fit teacher followed two years later. The panel judged that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if such conduct were not treated with the utmost seriousness, and noted his actions had a direct adverse effect on colleagues who witnessed and dealt with his behaviour. Within the teaching workforce, a prohibition order is a public, searchable mark: any employer in England checking the record sees an indefinite ban.
Current Status
Small is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. The order took effect on service on him. He may apply for it to be set aside, but not until 14 November 2029 at the earliest, four years from the decision maker’s order of 10 November 2025; an application is not an automatic right, and a fresh panel would decide whether to lift the ban. Without a successful application the prohibition remains indefinite. He had a right of appeal to the High Court within 28 days, and no appeal appears in the published record.
Impact on Their Career/Life
The ban forecloses the only profession the record shows him working in, ending nine years at Nicholas Chamberlaine and a Charnwood post that lasted barely a week. Because the findings include dishonesty, the panel identified the case as one where a longer period before review was warranted. Decision maker Sarah Buxcey concluded that allowing a lesser review period “is not sufficient to achieve the aim of maintaining public confidence in the profession”, citing “the seriousness of the findings involving alcohol and dishonesty, the lack of insight and the risk of repetition”. Any return to teaching before late 2029 is impossible, and thereafter depends on persuading a panel he no longer poses a risk of repetition.