Ms Christina Bourne

The Secretary of State does not make these decisions themselves. They are made by a senior official on the recommendation of an independent panel.

Teacher's name: Ms Christina Bourne

Teacher reference number: 3338014

Teacher's date of birth: 1 May 1988

Location teacher worked: Surrey, South East England

Date of professional conduct panel: 12 November 2025 to 14 November 2025

Outcome type: Prohibition order

Notice is hereby given that, in accordance with The Teacher's’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, a professional conduct panel was convened to consider the case of Ms Christina Bourne formerly employed in Surrey, South East England.

Teacher misconduct

Ground Floor, South

Cheylesmore House

5 Quinton RoadCoventryCV1 2WT

Email TRA.Casework@education.gov.uk

Telephone 020 7593 5393

Information about regulating the teaching profession and the process for dealing with serious teacher misconduct.

Ms Christina Bourne: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education December 2025 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 5 Documents 5 Witnesses 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 10 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 15 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Ms Christina Bourne Teacher ref number: 333804 Teacher date of birth: 01 May 1988 TRA reference: 22423 Date of determination: 14 November 2025 Former employer: Surrey County Council/Surrey Arts Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 12 to 14 November 2025 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Ms Christina Bourne. The panel members were Mr Aidan Jankins (teacher panellist – in the chair), Ms Mona Sood (lay panellist) and Dr Sian Rees-Evans (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Helen Kitchen of Blake Morgan solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Mark Millin, Solicitor-Advocate of Kingsley Napley LLP. Ms Christina Bourne was present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public save that portions of the hearing were heard in private and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of hearing dated 24 June 2025 which were amended during the hearing following the panel’s agreement to the TRA’s application to amend allegation 1. It was alleged that Ms Christina Bourne was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst working as a music teacher and employed by Surrey County Council: 1. In or around 2012 to 2017, she engaged in a sexual relationship with a former pupil, Pupil A; 2. 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. 3. On 6 September 2017, she accepted a police caution in relation to her conduct as set out at paragraph 2. 4. Her conduct at paragraph 1 above was of a sexual nature. In her response to the notice of hearing Ms Bourne denied allegations 1 and 4. She admitted sending the pictures, which was understood to be an admission to allegation 2. It was unclear if she admitted or denied allegation 3. On the first day of the hearing Ms Bourne clarified that she admitted allegations 1 and 4 but only in relation to the period December 2015 to 2017 and on the basis that this was a consensual relationship. As this admission did not relate to the full period covered by allegations 1 and 4 the panel took this to be a non-admission to the facts as alleged. The panel treated the facts as denied. Ms Bourne admitted allegation 3. She denied allegation 2. In her response to the notice of hearing Ms Bourne admitted unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in relation to sending the pictures. The panel considered this to be an admission in relation to allegation 2. It was unclear if Ms Bourne admitted unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in relation to allegation 3 so this was considered as not admitted. On the first day of the hearing Ms Bourne clarified that she admitted unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in relation to allegations 1 and 4 in relation to the period December 2015 to 2017. She also admitted unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in relation to allegation 3. 5 Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology, List of key people and Anonymised Pupil List - pages 1 to 6 Section 2: Notice of Hearing and Response to Notice of Hearing - pages 7 to 21 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements - pages 22 to 24 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents - pages 25 to 93 In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following: - Updated Anonymised Pupil List - page 1 - Statement from Witness B dated 12 November 2025 - page 1 - Extract from the medical records of Ms Bourne from Feb 2017 to May 2018 – page 1 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing and the additional documents that the panel decided to admit. In the consideration of this case, the panel had regard to the Procedures. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called by the presenting officer: Pupil A – former pupil at [REDACTED] (the School). Ms Bourne also gave evidence to the panel and called the following witness: Witness B - [REDACTED] Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. 6 Between 2007 and 2010 Ms Bourne taught Pupil A [REDACTED] at a primary school, [REDACTED] (the School), at a [REDACTED] through Surrey County Council/Surrey Arts (Surrey Arts). On 22 April 2017 Pupil A’s [REDACTED] received messages from an unknown user on Instagram informing her of Pupil A’s relationship with Ms Bourne. On or around 26 April 2017 Pupil A’s [REDACTED] received a WhatsApp message with some more detail relating to Pupil A and including sexual pictures of Pupil A. On 26 April 2017 Pupil A reported concerns to the police about his relationship with Ms Bourne. On 27 April 2017 Surrey Arts confirmed to the LADO that Ms Bourne was still employed by them. Ms Bourne subsequently confirmed to the LADO that she was working at two schools through Surrey Arts and also had contracts at 4 other schools. She had 10 private pupils of whom 5 were adults. Ms Bourne was suspended from her school roles whilst investigations were undertaken. She later resigned from them. On 24 May 2017 an initial “Managing allegations strategy/evaluation meeting” was held by Surrey County Council. On 30 June 2017 the police prepared a statement for Pupil A based on the information Pupil A had provided to them in telephone conversations. On 6 September 2017 Ms Bourne accepted a caution for the offence of “disclosing private sexual photographs and films with intent to cause distress” on 26 April 2017, which caution was recorded on the Police National Computer. On 29 March 2018 the Surrey County Council LADO closed their case. Findings of fact The findings of fact were as follows: 1. In or around 2012 to 2017, you engaged in a sexual relationship with a former pupil, Pupil A; The panel noted that Ms Bourne had admitted the facts of this allegation in relation to the period December 2015 to 2017. She denied the facts in relation to the period 2012 to November 2015. The panel heard evidence from former pupil, Pupil A. [REDACTED] 7 Ms Bourne gave evidence to the panel. [REDACTED] The panel found Ms Bourne’s evidence in relation to this allegation to be detailed and to be consistent with her earlier account of the events [REDACTED]. The panel heard evidence from Witness B that [REDACTED]. She recalled Pupil A, having apparently seen Ms Bourne’s picture on her Facebook page. Pupil A told her that Ms Bourne had been their [REDACTED] and asked for Ms Bourne’s personal telephone number as they were interested in resuming [REDACTED]. Witness B spoke to Ms Bourne and, having received her permission to do so, shared Ms Bourne’s work email with Pupil A. [REDACTED] The panel found, on the balance of probabilities, that the sexual relationship between Pupil A and Ms Bourne had taken place in and around late 2015 to 2017. The panel found allegation 1 proven taking account of Ms Bourne’s admission [REDACTED], which it found to be consistent with the evidence before the panel. 2. On or around 22 April 2017 you disclosed private sexual photographs relating to Pupil A to Pupil A’s partner with intent to cause distress. 3. On 6 September 2017, you accepted a police caution in relation to your conduct as set out at paragraph 2. Ms Bourne admitted allegation 3 but denied allegation 2. [REDACTED] Witness B told the panel that she was aware from Ms Bourne of the nature of her relationship with her [REDACTED]. The panel considered all of the evidence before it very carefully. It found the contemporaneous evidence of the circumstances of the offence as formally recorded in their police log to be compelling. [REDACTED] Taking all of these factors into account, and substantially based on the cotemporaneous police interview notes, the panel found allegation 2 proven on the balance of probabilities. The panel found Ms Bourne’s admission to allegation 3 was consistent with the evidence before it and found allegation 3 proven on the basis of that admission. 4. Your conduct at paragraph 1 above was of a sexual nature. 8 The panel had found allegation 1 (Ms Bourne having engaged in a sexual relationship with Pupil A) proven in relation to the period December 2015 to 2017. The panel considered that engaging in a sexual relationship was because of its nature conduct of a sexual nature. On this basis the panel found allegation 4 proven on the balance of probabilities. Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute Having found all of the allegations proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of those proved allegations amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. In doing so, the pa