UK - Rebecca Joynes, teacher, accused of sex offence against 2 pupils

[bobbymkii]

I understand that they are 2 different charges. I just don't understand the vast difference in the sentencing guidelines. Both the offences are for sexual activity with a child, so I don't understand why the sentencing guidelines max sentence is a lot higher if the accused is NOT in a position of trust. Surely the offence is worse (aggravating features) if the accused IS in a position of trust?

If anyone understands what I'm trying to say, but can think of a simpler way to describe it, please come forward! It's purely because the "position of trust" charge relates to an offence against a boy older than 16, and it is only an illegal act because she was his teacher at the time.

The offences against Boy A don't have the "position of trust" wording in them because he was 15, therefore it was illegal whether she was his teacher or not. But the fact she was his teacher will certainly be considered when she is sentenced.

Sexual activity with a child/ Causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity – Sentencing

www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk

Abuse of position of trust: sexual activity with a child/ Abuse of position of trust: causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity – Sentencing

www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk

 

[iamshadow21]

I understand that they are 2 different charges. I just don't understand the vast difference in the sentencing guidelines. Both the offences are for sexual activity with a child, so I don't understand why the sentencing guidelines max sentence is a lot higher if the accused is NOT in a position of trust. Surely the offence is worse (aggravating features) if the accused IS in a position of trust?

It's about the age of consent.

At sixteen, a person can consent. Under sixteen they can't.

But if a person is sixteen, a person in a position of trust over that sixteen year old cannot have a consenting sexual encounter with them because of that power dynamic. It's similar to the laws surrounding, say, a therapist trying to have a sexual relationship with a client. That is absolutely not okay, despite both in that situation being adults, because of the power imbalance.

So it isn't seen as being the same as an adult sexually assaulting a child fifteen or under, but it's still a problem in the eyes of the law because of the power dynamic making it impossible for true consent to be given.

MOO

 

[Little Nicki]

But the wording is 'Sexual activity with a CHILD, whilst in a position of trust.

So that reads to me that the charge involves both a CHILD and a person in a position of trust.

Maybe it's just my neurospicy brain not getting it?

 

[iamshadow21]

But the wording is 'Sexual activity with a CHILD, whilst in a position of trust.

So that reads to me that the charge involves both a CHILD and a person in a position of trust.

Maybe it's just my neurospicy brain not getting it?

I think it just means that the victim is under eighteen.

But I am just guessing.

 

[bobbymkii]

But the wording is 'Sexual activity with a CHILD, whilst in a position of trust.

So that reads to me that the charge involves both a CHILD and a person in a position of trust.

Maybe it's just my neurospicy brain not getting it?

I got confused by it at first too!

But then looking through the Sentencing council guidelines which I linked in my previous post, it became apparent that the only reason that those charges contain the words "position of trust" is because the victim was over the general age of consent, but because she was deemed to be his teacher that means that the effective age of consent for someone under that offender's position of trust, is 18. So it's a lower max sentence because it is an offence against someone who is over 16, rather than under.

In the charges which are simply worded "sexual activity with a child" the position of trust is a factor leading to it being at the highest level of culpability (A). It definitely hasn't been forgotten!

 

[MollyHarps]

The judge has returned and doing closing remarks

Sentencing should be any minute now

 

[Little Nicki]

That makes a little more sense to me now, thank you My brain is very literal

 

[iamshadow21]

That makes a little more sense to me now, thank you My brain is very literal

Mine, too.

Multiply neurodivergent myself.

 

[MollyHarps]

Some scathing remarks from the judge

Rebecca Joynes case LIVE as ex-teacher learns fate after having sex with pupils

The 30-year-old was convicted of six counts, relating to two boys, in May

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk

Can see a big sentence being given here

 

[Parker Knoll]

6.5 yrs.

 

[MollyHarps]

Six and a half years jailed

 

[Parker Knoll]

Keeping the police waiting outside whilst she reset her phone … wow.
What a piece of work.

 

[Twittens]

It doesn't really seem enough to me, considering how devastating and all-encompassing her abuse will be for her young victims to have to try and move on from, and I would like to have seen something closer to the maximum.

I think there is still a real problem with understanding CSA perpetrated by women as being just as damaging as that by men.

 

[Honeybirdette]

Wow 6.5 years is low.
I’d expect that sort of sentence for one boy alone. Never mind doing it to a second boy (whilst on bail for the first) AND falling pregnant to him.

I think 8 would have been fair

 

[Dotta]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1808837543418286139

 

[Honeybirdette]

Teacher who had sex with 15-year-old pupil jailed - BBC News

Kandice Barber groomed the boy through Snapchat, the judge tells her sentencing hearing.

www.bbc.co.uk

Kandice was jailed for 6 years and two months. Only one victim here and she didn’t fall pregnant with him nor give birth to his baby ??
Boy bs life is forever changed. he’s a dad at 16 and this will have an effect on him for the rest of his life.

 

[Dotta]

'The most innocent victim is our child'

https://twitter.com/x/status/1808834465893933368

 

[bobbymkii]

I think TLP have got the parole eligibility date wrong. They've put 4/10/27 (I.E. 3y3m - half of 6y6m sentence - from now), but she's already served 9 months on remand, so parole date should be 4/1/27 instead?

https://www.thelawpages.com/court-cases/Rebecca-Joynes-40008-1.law

 

[Honeybirdette]

I think TLP have got the parole eligibility date wrong. They've put 4/10/27 (I.E. 3y3m - half of 6y6m sentence - from now), but she's already served 9 months on remand, so parole date should be 4/1/27 instead?

https://www.thelawpages.com/court-cases/Rebecca-Joynes-40008-1.law

I don’t think she served 9 months on remand did she?
She was arrested and remanded the day after telling boy b she was pregnant.. ( got to be around 8 weeks preg at this point. At least ) and then she was released before she gave birth. I’d think she served 6 months on remand max.

 

[bobbymkii]

I don’t think she served 9 months on remand did she?
She was arrested and remanded the day after telling boy b she was pregnant.. ( got to be around 8 weeks preg at this point. At least ) and then she was released before she gave birth. I’d think she served 6 months on remand max.

She served 6 months on remand until she was about to give birth to the baby, then after that she did 6 months of "qualified curfew" which is almost like house arrest and counts half as much towards credit for time served.

so: 6 + (6/2) = 9 months.

That's my guess anyway.