Natalie Surr

Introduction

Natalie Surr is a former Lead Teacher of Computing at Shirebrook Academy in Mansfield who was banned from teaching in July 2026 after admitting she concealed her relationship with a registered sex offender from her school, and that she arranged for a vulnerable pupil to tidy her garden for ten pounds. She signed a statement of agreed facts and admitted every allegation. The public record of the case is the regulator’s published decision; no mainstream press coverage carrying her name has been located.

Background Information

Surr, born 31 December 1981, joined Shirebrook Academy on 1 September 2016 and became Lead Teacher of Computing on 1 September 2022. By a date before July 2023 she was in a personal relationship with a man the decision identifies only as Person A. In or around July 2023, Person A disclosed to her that he was a registered sex offender, and a person connected to him met with Surr to explain his circumstances, as his probation terms required. The decision records that another person, Person B, tried to persuade Surr to notify the Academy of the relationship; she argued against needing to do so and refused. The Academy’s separate disciplinary investigation into the gardening matter, begun around October 2023, concluded on 14 December 2023.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

Adjudicated vs. alleged. The findings below are regulatory, made on the balance of probabilities by a TRA panel — but here they rest on Surr’s own signed admission of the facts. They are findings of professional misconduct — not criminal findings against Surr, who has not been accused of any offence. Her partner appears as the decision records him: Person A, an anonymised registered sex offender.

From on or around July 2023, Surr did not inform the Academy she was in a relationship with Person A. The school learned of it only on 12 January 2024, from an email from a member of the public raising concerns that she was knowingly in a relationship with a registered sex offender. When the Academy met her on 23 January 2024 and asked whether she knew Person A, she confirmed he was her partner but did not disclose that she knew he was a registered sex offender. Asked “do you feel comfortable telling me about him?”, per the file note of the meeting, she answered “he is my partner” and divulged nothing more; in the later investigation Colleague A described her position as like “getting blood from a stone”.

The Academy investigated and interviewed Surr on 3 June 2024. She confirmed the relationship was about a year old and that she had known Person A was a registered sex offender since July 2023. She said she had been unsure the relationship would continue, and had researched online and believed disclosure was only needed if she and Person A were living together — which they were not. Following the Academy’s disciplinary process, her employment ended on 18 July 2024.

Separately, between around 21 and 23 September 2023, Surr asked Pupil A whether she knew anyone willing to tidy the garden at her home, which she had vacated before returning the keys to her landlord. Pupil A volunteered herself and did the work, including picking up dog faeces; on 25 September Surr paid her ten pounds on the Academy premises. The panel accepted she may not have asked for the faeces to be collected, but accepted Pupil A’s account that it happened. Pupil A was known amongst staff as having safeguarding vulnerabilities, and the panel found Surr was likely aware, or ought reasonably to have been aware, of that. Two risks followed: Pupil A worked unaccompanied at the vacated house, with gardening and dog-faeces hazards and no evident plan had injury materialised — and, because Surr had deliberately concealed Person A’s status, it was possible he could have visited the property.

On dishonesty, the panel found Surr had had multiple opportunities to disclose and chose not to; what she knew emerged only when prompted during an investigation, not voluntarily. Early in the relationship she may genuinely have believed disclosure unnecessary, but once the Academy began investigating in January 2024 her actions could no longer be considered mistaken or careless. At that point, the panel found, they were “dishonest or, at the very least, lacked integrity”.

Public Reaction and Consequences

The panel found all seven allegations proved, amounting to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, with the offence of serious dishonesty relevant. Six character references described her as supportive, compassionate and reliable, but none addressed the allegations; her statement of reflection — “I am ashamed of my actions and truly sorry that I did not act with the level of integrity that my role as a teacher demands” — showed insight and remorse only “to some degree”. The panel remained concerned she had not confirmed whether she was still in the relationship with Person A, and could not rule out the risk of repetition. It recommended prohibition with immediate effect and a three-year review period, the seriousness of the dishonesty being a key consideration in that length.

Current Status

The determination is dated 6 July 2026, decided without a hearing at Surr’s own request at a private virtual panel meeting. Stuart Blomfield, the Secretary of State’s decision maker, agreed the next day, 7 July 2026, that a prohibition order was proportionate and in the public interest. Surr is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. Under the order’s three-year review period she may apply for it to be set aside, but not until 10 July 2029 at the earliest — and an application is not automatic. She retains a right of appeal to the High Court within 28 days of notice. The outcome was published on 22 July 2026.

Impact on Their Career/Life

Surr’s employment at Shirebrook Academy had already ended on 18 July 2024. The prohibition order forecloses teaching in England for at least three years, and any future application to set it aside would be heard against a finding of dishonesty on which the decision maker placed considerable weight. The published decision also fixes the case permanently in searchable public form: a teacher who, on her own admission, spent roughly six months concealing a partner’s registered-sex-offender status from a school responsible for pupils’ safeguarding.

Sources

• Teaching Regulation Agency, “Teacher misconduct panel outcome: Miss Natalie Surr,” published 22 July 2026 — source