Justine Drury
Introduction
Justine Drury is a former teacher at CP Riverside School (formerly Channeling Positivity) in Nottingham who was banned from teaching for at least five years in December 2024 after a panel found serious misconduct proven against her. The published decision — over one hundred pages of findings and reasoning, one of the largest teacher-misconduct determinations of its year — records a contested hearing in which the Teaching Regulation Agency’s allegations against Drury were found proven and held to amount to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. The decision maker, Sarah Buxcey, imposed an indefinite prohibition order on 6 December 2024 with a five-year review period, so Drury cannot apply to have the ban lifted before 10 December 2029.
Background Information
Drury, born September 1972, taught at the school recorded in the decision as Channeling Positivity, which by the time of publication was named CP Riverside School — a Nottingham alternative provision setting. The panel convened by way of a virtual hearing spanning multiple days, with Drury participating in contested proceedings rather than admitting the allegations; the notice of proceedings allegations charged her with unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute “whilst a teacher at Channeling Positivity (’the School’)”. The determination is dated 29 November 2024, and the published findings section runs to dozens of pages — a length that in TRA practice marks a case built on an accumulation of conduct examined in detail rather than a single incident decided on papers.
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Adjudicated findings. The panel found the allegations against Drury proven and found that the proven facts amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. The published decision’s redactions protect the identities of pupils and others involved, consistent with the regulator’s practice for alternative provision cases involving vulnerable children.
The panel’s route to prohibition passed through the standard gates. On facts, it found the allegations proven. On characterisation, it held the proven conduct fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession, breaching the Teachers’ Standards and amounting to both unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. On sanction, it first tested whether publication of the adverse findings alone would suffice and concluded it would not: “Recommending that the publication of adverse findings would be sufficient would unacceptably compromise the public interest considerations present in this case, despite the severity of the consequences for Mrs Drury of prohibition.” It then recommended prohibition with a five-year review period — a tier reflecting findings it treated as serious but short of the no-review band. The decision maker agreed, stating that “a five year review period is required to satisfy the maintenance of public confidence in the profession”, and that requiring Drury to apply and convince a fresh panel “would continue to meet the public interest in safeguarding pupils”.
Public Reaction and Consequences
No press coverage attaches to the case; the published decision is the public record. The concrete consequences are those the order imposes: Drury is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. The five-year review window means she may apply for the order to be set aside from 10 December 2029 — and the decision maker framed that application requirement as itself a safeguarding mechanism, not an entitlement: a fresh panel must be satisfied the prohibition should lift in the public interest. She retains a right of appeal to the High Court within 28 days of being given notice of the order; the published record shows no appeal was filed. The case otherwise left no public footprint beyond the regulator’s own publication.
Current Status
Drury is prohibited from teaching indefinitely, the order dated 6 December 2024 and effective from service on her. The review window opens on 10 December 2029; until any successful application then, the prohibition is total across England’s regulated education settings — including the alternative provision sector where she taught. The determination is dated 29 November 2024 and the decision maker’s order 6 December 2024, closing proceedings whose published record runs past one hundred pages. Whether she seeks restoration in 2029 is not recorded; the published decision is the case’s last public word unless she applies. Her teaching career, which the findings ended at CP Riverside, cannot resume elsewhere in the interim.
Impact on Their Career/Life
Drury’s case illustrates the middle of the regulator’s sanction ladder as applied to a contested case in a sensitive setting: findings serious enough for an indefinite ban, a hearing contested to the end, and still a five-year review door left open — the difference between her outcome and the no-restoration orders imposed on teachers convicted of offences against children. The decision’s size marks it as a pattern case, and pattern cases at alternative provision schools carry particular weight with panels because their pupils are among the most vulnerable in the system. For teachers, it is a reminder that a full contested defence that fails yields the same prohibition as an admission — plus the years and publicity of a multi-day hearing. For the sector, the case ends with the regulator holding the door ajar but conditioning any 2029 return on persuading a new panel that public interest favours it.
Sources
- Dept for Education, “Teacher misconduct panel outcome: Mrs Justine Drury” — source