Emily Webber
Introduction
Emily Webber was an English teacher at St Martin’s School in Northwood from 1 September 2019 until 18 June 2023. In May 2023 she was arrested for possessing diazepam, a Class C controlled drug, and for driving with an alcohol level above the prescribed limit, and was convicted of both offences at St Albans Magistrates’ Court on or around 22 December 2023. A Teaching Regulation Agency panel further found that she had stored medications in an unlocked classroom unit and had diazepam delivered to the school without a prescription. In August 2025, a decision maker acting for the Secretary of State imposed an indefinite prohibition order with a three-year review period, banning her from teaching in England.
Background Information
Webber worked at St Martin’s School between September 2019 and June 2023. She was arrested on 27 May 2023, and police confiscated diazepam from her during the arrest, which led to the discovery that the drug had been delivered to the school. After emails from the police and the Local Authority Designated Officer, a school witness found drugs in unlocked drawers during a search of her classroom on 5 June 2023. She was suspended on 9 June 2023 pending investigation and resigned by email on 18 June 2023. A referral was made to the TRA on 20 August 2023.
The case was considered without a hearing at a virtual panel meeting on 11 August 2025. Webber had signed a statement of agreed facts dated 3 February 2025 in which she admitted the allegations and that her conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute.
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Convictions and controlled drugs on school premises.
The panel found the first allegation proved. On or around 22 December 2023, Webber was convicted at St Albans Magistrates’ Court of possessing a Class C controlled drug and of driving a motor vehicle when her alcohol level was above the limit. She accepted that on 27 May 2023 she had diazepam in her possession in contravention of Section 5(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and drove with 262 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood against a limit of 80. She was fined £100 for the drug offence, with the diazepam forfeited and destroyed, and for the driving offence was disqualified from driving for 24 months, reducible by 24 weeks on completion of a course, and fined £500, with costs. The panel noted that her behaviour did not lead to imprisonment, “which was indicative that the offences were at the less serious end of the possible spectrum.”
The panel also found proved that she placed one or more pupils at risk of harm by storing medications on the school’s premises without ensuring they were secure or inaccessible to pupils. She accepted that these included paracetamol, co-codamol 30/500, diazepam, colpermin and other medications, kept in an unlocked classroom desk pedestal unit. The panel found that “Miss Webber placed the pupils at the School at risk of serious harm by storing controlled drugs on the premises without proper care.”
It further found that she had an illegal drug, diazepam, delivered to the school on or around 27 May 2023. She had ordered nine packs of diazepam containing 28 2mg tablets without a prescription or a doctor’s involvement, and admitted the tablets would have been placed in the staff pigeonholes, “and any pupil could have walked past the staff pigeonholes and gained access to the tablets.” The panel noted that diazepam is not illegal when properly prescribed, but that ordering it without prescription was unlawful, and treated the delivery of the drug to the school as an aggravating factor.
A further allegation, that she gave false or misleading information to Harefield School in July 2023 by saying she had left St Martin’s for “career progression” and because she was “bored and had been passed up for promotion”, rather than disclosing her suspension, was found not proved. The panel saw no evidence her stated reasons were false, and noted her application form did not ask whether she had been suspended or subject to disciplinary proceedings. The allegations that this conduct lacked integrity or was dishonest therefore also failed.
Public Reaction and Consequences
The decision records no press coverage; it is a regulatory record of a panel meeting held in private. The panel found the proven facts amounted to unacceptable professional conduct, conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, and a conviction of a relevant offence. It judged that the safeguarding of pupils and the maintenance of public confidence outweighed Webber’s interests, noting that “public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Miss Webber were not treated with the utmost seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession.” It recommended a prohibition order with immediate effect and a three-year review period, having found that “The significant child safeguarding concerns was a significant factor in forming that opinion.” The consequences were an indefinite teaching ban, a driving disqualification, fines and costs.
Current Status
On 14 August 2025, decision maker David Oatley, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, imposed the prohibition order with a three-year review period. Webber 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 22 August 2028, three years from the date of the order; this is not an automatic right. The order takes effect when served, and she may appeal to the High Court within 28 days.
Impact on Their Career/Life
The prohibition order ended Webber’s teaching career in England. The panel acknowledged that no doubt had been cast on her abilities as an educator and that she showed full insight into her conduct, stating, “I take full responsibility for my actions last year, and can only apologise.” She also wrote, “I made a series of extremely poor choices, as outlined in all of your documents. For which I am so sorry”. Those findings and her convictions remain on the public record. If she wishes to teach again, she must serve the review period and then persuade a panel to set the order aside.