Dovile Jankauskaite

Introduction

Dovile Jankauskaite was a teacher at a school whose identity is redacted in the published decision. In May 2021 a Teaching Regulation Agency professional conduct panel found that she began an intimate relationship with one of her pupils, Pupil A, in or around February 2018 — a relationship she confirmed when questioned, showing text messages between them and admitting it was sexual and that she was “in love”. The panel found proved that she rubbed the pupil’s belly, hugged him from behind, told him “you’re the only one that I love”, exchanged romantic messages including heart-shaped emoticons, met him alone at her house more than once, allowed him to drink her alcohol there, and engaged in sexual activity with him, including sexual intercourse. Jankauskaite was suspended on 13 February 2019 and resigned with effect from 31 August 2019. She did not attend the hearing. Decision maker Alan Meyrick banned her from teaching for life with no review period and no entitlement to apply for restoration.

Background Information

The relationship came to light through another pupil. On 12 February 2019, Pupil B made a disclosure to a staff member that they were aware of an incident between Jankauskaite and Pupil A; when questioned, Jankauskaite confirmed the relationship, showed the messages, and admitted it was sexual. The allegations were heard in a notice of proceedings dated 15 March 2021 and amended in April 2021. In her written comments Jankauskaite admitted the love declaration, the romantic messages, the house meetings, the sexual activity and the boundary failure, but denied the belly rub, the hug from behind, and that her conduct was sexually motivated — her position being that she entered a romantic relationship without “sexual intent”. She also admitted discussing her mental health with a different pupil, Pupil B. She initially indicated she would attend the hearing, then emailed to confirm she would not; the panel applied the R v Jones line of authority and proceeded in her absence, and refused her application for the whole hearing to be heard in private. No criminal proceedings are noted in the published decision.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

Admitted a sexual relationship with her own pupil — messages, secret house meetings, alcohol, sexual intercourse; panel found the conduct sexually motivated; banned for life with no review. Jankauskaite admitted most of the conduct but denied sexual motivation and denied the earliest touching; the panel found nearly everything proved, on her admissions and the witness evidence.

The panel heard from Individual A, Individual B and Pupil B, finding all three credible, and gave their tested oral evidence greater weight than her written comments. On the denied belly-rub and hug-from-behind allegations, Individual A described Pupil A’s account — including a demonstration of the belly touch — and the panel found the conduct consistent with the intimate relationship and likely to have occurred. On the house meetings, Jankauskaite claimed Pupil A initiated the visits, but Individual B told the panel that pupils would not have access to teachers’ home addresses, and another witness recalled Jankauskaite saying she had cooked dinner for Pupil A at her house; the panel found it likely she had invited him and provided her address, and that she never asked him to leave or reported his attendance to the school. On the alcohol allegation she claimed the pupil helped himself to wine from her fridge while she was out of the room; the panel found she made no attempt to take it away or report it. Her sexual-motivation denial failed on the case law the panel applied: having admitted a sexual relationship with a pupil she taught, the panel could see no other reason for the conduct than pursuit of a sexual relationship. It found sexual motivation proved for every element except the alcohol allegation, on which it said it lacked a chronology.

Public Reaction and Consequences

The panel found a strong public interest in the protection of pupils given the serious findings of a failure to maintain professional boundaries and an inappropriate sexual relationship with a pupil, alongside public confidence and proper standards. In mitigation it accepted evidence that Jankauskaite had been a good teacher who achieved good results with strong subject knowledge, and treated the relationship as a one-off incident she herself called a naïve mistake — but it was concerned that her comments sought to shift responsibility, that she showed no steps to prevent recurrence, and above all that she would not accept the conduct was sexually motivated. That refusal drove the insight finding: the panel concluded she had not demonstrated sufficient insight into her actions. Meyrick placed considerable weight on the lack of full remorse or insight and on the serious sexual misconduct found. The published decision is the case’s main public record; the school’s identity is redacted, and neither the relationship nor the ban attracted press coverage.

Current Status

Jankauskaite is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. Meyrick decided she shall not be entitled to apply for restoration of her eligibility to teach, so the order has no review date — the panel having found her conduct sexually motivated and such that she may have used her professional position to influence or exploit the pupil, with potential to harm him or other pupils. The order takes effect from service, with a right of appeal to the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court within 28 days of notice. The decision maker put the one unproven allegation — sexual motivation on the alcohol element — entirely from his mind in reaching the sanction. The panel’s determination is dated 12 to 13 May 2021, with Meyrick’s order dated 18 May 2021. Her resignation took effect on 31 August 2019, nearly two years before the ban; the prohibition converted a voluntary exit into a permanent exclusion from the profession.

Impact on Their Career/Life

The case records the regulator’s treatment of the admitted-relationship-but-denied-motivation posture: Jankauskaite’s concessions on nearly every fact bought her nothing, because the sexual-motivation finding — which the panel reached on the case law once she admitted the sexual relationship itself — is what forecloses any review period under the Advice. Her written framing of a naïve, unpremeditated romantic relationship was outweighed by the structural facts the panel found: she was the pupil’s teacher, in a position of power and trust, and the contact escalated from love declarations to house visits to alcohol to intercourse within weeks. For schools, the decision shows the disclosure chain working as designed — a second pupil’s report triggering suspension within a day — and the redacted publication showing how the TRA protects institutional identity even while publishing the teacher’s name in full. For Jankauskaite, previously regarded as a good teacher, the lifetime ban with no restoration right ends a career over a relationship she has never been prosecuted for.

Sources

• Dept for Education, “Teacher misconduct panel outcome: Ms Dovile Jankauskaite” — source