Christina Bourne
Introduction
Christina Bourne is a former music teacher employed by Surrey County Council who was prohibited from teaching indefinitely in December 2025 after a Teaching Regulation Agency panel found she had a sexual relationship with a former pupil and disclosed the pupil’s private sexual photographs to the pupil’s partner to cause distress — conduct for which she accepted a police caution in 2017. She initially denied the relationship, then admitted on the first day of her hearing that it had taken place from December 2015 to 2017, saying it was consensual; the panel treated that as a non-admission to the allegation as framed and found the facts denied in part and proved. She admitted the photo disclosure and the caution. The decision maker imposed an indefinite ban with a review possible only after four years.
Background Information
Bourne worked as a music teacher employed by Surrey County Council, including a role connected to Surrey Arts teaching. The relationship alleged in the proceedings spanned 2012 to 2017 with a pupil referred to as Pupil A. The case reached the regulator through the police caution: on 6 September 2017 she accepted a caution in relation to disclosing private sexual photographs of Pupil A to Pupil A’s partner with intent to cause distress — the offence now commonly known as revenge porn. The referral to the TRA followed, and the hearing, held years later, opened with her clarifying her position on each allegation.
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Partially admitted misconduct case. A Teaching Regulation Agency panel found the relationship allegation proved for the 2012-2017 period alleged, after Bourne’s day-one admission covered only December 2015 to 2017 and was conditional on the relationship being consensual — which the panel treated as a non-admission to the facts as alleged. She admitted disclosing the photographs and admitted the police caution. The findings are regulatory; the caution resolved the criminal side without prosecution, and no conviction appears in the published record.
It was alleged that between around 2012 and 2017 Bourne engaged in a sexual relationship with Pupil A, a former pupil, and that her conduct was of a sexual nature. In her written response she denied the relationship; she admitted sending the pictures. On the first day of the hearing she clarified that she admitted allegations 1 and 4 — the relationship and its sexual nature — but only for December 2015 to 2017 and only on the basis that the relationship was consensual. Because that admission did not cover the full period alleged, the panel took it to be a non-admission to the facts as alleged, treated the facts as denied, and found them proved on the evidence. She admitted allegation 3, the 6 September 2017 police caution, accepted in relation to her conduct in disclosing the photographs. The panel found proved that on or around 22 April 2017 she disclosed private sexual photographs relating to Pupil A to Pupil A’s partner with intent to cause distress — the same conduct the caution had addressed.
The panel found her conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. The decision maker’s reasoning records that in cases involving serious sexual misconduct the public interest weighs in favour of not offering a review period, but concluded that the mitigating evidence in Bourne’s case was sufficient for a four-year review to maintain public confidence — with any return to teaching conditional on her evidencing full insight into and remorse for her actions to a future panel. Her late, partial admission and her framing of the relationship as consensual stand on the record alongside the panel’s treatment of them: a denial in form, an admission in substance for the final eighteen months of the alleged period.
Public Reaction and Consequences
The published decision documents institutional consequences rather than public debate. The case moved through three systems: the police, whose investigation ended in the September 2017 caution Bourne accepted with an admission; the county council that employed her as a music teacher; and the TRA, whose hearing came eight years after the caution. No public statements from Bourne, her former employer, or Surrey Arts appear in the published record beyond the proceedings themselves. The panel’s findings — a multi-year sexual relationship with a former pupil, and the deliberate disclosure of that pupil’s private sexual images to cause her distress — carry the regulator’s account of conduct the criminal process had resolved by caution rather than prosecution.
Current Status
The panel recommended a prohibition order with a four-year review period. The decision maker, Marc Cavey, agreed on 19 December 2025 on behalf of the Secretary of State: Bourne is prohibited from teaching indefinitely, cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England, and may apply for the order to be set aside, but not until 2029 — four years from the order date at the earliest, and not an automatic right. The decision states she would need to provide a future panel with evidence she had developed full insight into and remorse for her actions. The determination is dated 14 November 2025; the order takes effect when served, with a right of appeal to the High Court within 28 days.
Impact on Their Career/Life
The ban ends Bourne’s career in music education in England eight years after the police caution that set the regulatory machinery in motion, and keeps her out of every school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation and children’s home in England until at least 2029. The caution remains on her criminal record as an admitted offence — accepted, per the panel’s finding, in relation to disclosing a former pupil’s private sexual photographs to cause distress. The regulatory record adds the panel’s finding that her relationship with the former pupil ran from 2012 to 2017, rejecting the shorter, consensual-only framing she offered. Any return to teaching would require proving insight the decision maker found necessary but not yet demonstrated.