Culpability​

The level of culpability or blame is worked out by looking at all the factors involved in the incident. If there are elements that point to different levels of blame, you should weigh these up carefully and give the most relevant ones the right amount of importance to reach a fair judgement about the person’s level of responsibility.

.

A – High culpability

• Possession of a quantity of alcohol indicating an intent to supply

• Supply, attempted supply, or distribution of alcohol to pupils

• Significant planning, organisation, or concealment

• Possession of containers, packaging, or other items indicating supply

• Leading role where the offending is part of a group activity

• Use of other pupils to store, carry, hide, or distribute alcohol

• Deliberate bringing of alcohol onto the school site for sale, supply, or onward distribution

• Possession or supply linked to intimidation, debt, coercion, or exploitation of other pupils

• Deliberate targeting of younger or vulnerable pupils

• Repeated alcohol-related offending despite previous sanctions or interventions

• Alcohol possessed or supplied during the school day or as part of a school activity

• Significant attempt to evade detection or dispose of evidence

B – Medium culpability

• Deliberate possession of alcohol for personal use

• Possession of a smaller quantity of alcohol without clear evidence of supply

• Consumption of alcohol on site or during a school-related activity

• Possession of containers or other items indicating likely misuse

• Joint possession or shared involvement without a leading role

• Some planning or concealment, but not at the highest level

• Incident falling between categories A and C

C – Lesser culpability

• Limited or lower-level involvement with reduced evidence of planning

• Brief or opportunistic possession of alcohol without evidence of supply

• Responsibility substantially reduced by age, immaturity, learning difficulty, or personal circumstances

• Involvement through coercion, pressure, intimidation, or exploitation by others

• Limited role in a wider group incident

• Early admission and cooperation

• Circumstances suggesting vulnerability or exploitation rather than straightforward offending, while still recognising the seriousness of the conduct

Harm

​

Harm 1

•  

• Serious safeguarding risk created for other pupils or the wider school community

• Supply or intended supply of drugs to others

• Serious risk of physical harm, overdose, medical emergency, or acute intoxication

• Serious disruption to the safe and orderly running of the school

• Serious psychological or emotional impact on pupils or staff

• Serious reputational damage to the school

• Clear evidence of exploitation, coercion, or wider criminality linked to the incident

• Drugs present in a way that exposed younger or vulnerable pupils to significant risk

Harm 2

• Clear risk to the safety, wellbeing, or welfare of the pupil or others

• Drug use or possession causing significant concern, alarm, or disruption

• Noticeable impact on learning, staff time, safeguarding processes, or the confidence of the school community

• Harm falling between categories 1 and 3 because:

• factors are present in 1 and 3 which balance each other out and/or

• the harm falls between the factors described in 1 and 3

Harm 3

• Minor consequential damage to reputation

• Minor consequential damage to school reputation

• Minor distressed caused

• Lower-level harm with limited wider impact

• No evidence of supply and limited evidence of wider exposure to others

• Limited disruption once the incident was brought under control

• Lower-level but still significant concern arising from possession or use​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​