Richard Murphy
Introduction
Richard Murphy taught religious education at St Bernadette Catholic Secondary School in Bristol from January 2013 until his dismissal in June 2021. Between June 2015 and January 2021 he exchanged sexually explicit messages with Pupil A, kissed her and entered into a sexual relationship with her. In July 2025 a Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) professional conduct panel found all of the allegations against him proven and recommended a prohibition order. The decision maker, acting for the Secretary of State, prohibited him from teaching indefinitely, with no review period and no entitlement to apply for restoration.
Background Information
Mr Murphy worked at the School in two spells, from January 2013 to August 2015 and from January 2016 to June 2021. An anonymous report to the School in November 2020 led to an internal investigation and referrals to the LADO and the police. Pupil A made a police report in January 2021. After a further investigation meeting and disciplinary hearing, Mr Murphy was dismissed from his employment at the School in June 2021 and a referral to the TRA was made. The TRA agreed to his request that the allegations be considered without a hearing.
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
A sexual relationship with a former pupil.
The panel considered an allegation that between 26 June 2015 and 9 January 2021, on one or more occasions, Mr Murphy engaged in the exchange of sexually explicit messages with Pupil A, kissing with her, oral sex with her and penetrative sex with her. He admitted the facts of all four particulars in a statement of agreed facts signed by his representative on his behalf on 29 April 2025, accepting that they amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. The panel made its own determination and found all of the allegations proven.
The decision records that after attending a [REDACTED] organised by the School, Mr Murphy was contacted by Pupil A on social media and had sex with her at his house the next day. At the time, Pupil A was [REDACTED] years old and Mr Murphy was 25; the two then entered a sexual relationship lasting approximately [REDACTED]. Pupil A’s witness statement described how he conversed with her on Facebook Messenger and that “he used to send me explicit pictures of himself in the staff bathrooms”. The police report confirmed the exchange of sexually explicit messages from Mr Murphy to Pupil A, such as “BJ” and that he will “go and wash his balls”. Questioned by police, Mr Murphy admitted that “they got sexual pretty quickly” and that he had “invited (Pupil A) to (his) house for sex of some sort.”
Pupil A stated that when she went to his house they “started kissing and then he took me upstairs”. In his police interview Mr Murphy said “I invited her over to my house for sex of some sort…. There was oral sex, her and me”, and admitted that on that day “oral sex had taken place”. In the agreed facts he stated that the relationship “involved sexual activity, including… penetrative sex on numerous occasions during their relationship.” Pupil A also stated that he “wanted to have sexual activity in the School, which we ended up doing”.
Mr Murphy contended that he had never had a sexual relationship with a pupil at the School because the relationship began after Pupil A came off the school register. The panel was not persuaded: it concluded that the relationship was one of teacher and pupil and therefore one with a power imbalance, noting that the sexual relationship began less than 24 hours after Pupil A was officially no longer a pupil at the School. It noted his admission that he had told Pupil A he was sexually aroused by the idea that they were formerly teacher and pupil, and found this disturbing. Finding breaches of the Teachers’ Standards and of Keeping Children Safe in Education, the panel concluded that the conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute.
Public Reaction and Consequences
The published decision records no press coverage; the documented response is the regulatory one. The panel recommended that a prohibition order be imposed with immediate effect, without a review period, finding a strong public interest in the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils and holding that “the conduct found against Mr Murphy was outside that which could reasonably be tolerated.” It accepted that Mr Murphy showed some remorse — he stated “Not a day passes by, where I don’t wish I could go back and change things.” — but concluded that this remorse was rooted in the consequences for himself, saw no evidence that he had reflected on the impact on Pupil A, and was concerned that he continued to maintain “I never had a relationship with any pupil”. Mr Murphy was dismissed in June 2021 and is now prohibited from teaching.
Current Status
The panel met virtually on 25 July 2025. On 30 July 2025 the decision maker, David Oatley, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, imposed a prohibition order and accepted the panel’s recommendation that no provision be made for a review period. The decision records that “Mr Richard Murphy is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England”, and that “Mr Murphy shall not be entitled to apply for restoration of his eligibility to teach.” The order takes effect from the date on which it is served on him, and he has a right of appeal to the High Court within 28 days of being given notice of it.
Impact on Their Career/Life
The prohibition order ends Mr Murphy’s teaching career in England permanently: the ban applies indefinitely, no review period was set, and he cannot apply for restoration of his eligibility to teach. Combined with his dismissal in June 2021, it closes roughly eight years’ employment at St Bernadette Catholic Secondary School across two spells. The published findings — unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, founded on a relationship the panel treated as one of teacher and pupil and an exploitation of his position of trust — now form part of the permanent public record.