Rebecca Joynes
Introduction
Rebecca Joynes is a former maths teacher whose career ended with an indefinite prohibition order made on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education. In May 2024, after a contested jury trial, she was convicted at Manchester Crown Court of six counts of sexual activity with a child concerning two male pupils at the secondary school where she taught. A professional conduct panel of the Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) found the allegation of a conviction for a relevant offence proved, and in December 2025 she was prohibited from teaching for life, with no entitlement to apply for restoration. She did not attend or respond to the TRA hearing, so the allegation was not admitted.
Background Information
Ms Joynes began teaching at the school in 2018 and taught pupils aged 11 to 18. She was employed as a maths teacher until 21 July 2022, when the school dismissed her for gross misconduct and referred her to the TRA the following day, reporting that she was under investigation for sexual activity with a child. The published decision redacts her former employer and does not name the school. The events underlying the case began in October 2021, when two Year 11 pupils, referred to as Pupil A and Pupil B, were taught maths by her.
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Conviction-based prohibition. The findings below rest on criminal convictions recorded at Manchester Crown Court on 17 May 2024 and a Teaching Regulation Agency professional conduct panel’s finding that Ms Joynes was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct through conviction of a relevant offence. The prohibition order is a regulatory sanction rather than a criminal penalty: the panel applied the civil standard, the balance of probabilities, and because Ms Joynes neither attended the virtual hearing on 4 December 2025 nor responded to the allegation, the allegation was not admitted.
The sentencing remarks record that there was sexual activity, including penetrative sex, between Ms Joynes and Pupil A on 15 October 2021. She was reported to the police, suspended the following week and placed under bail conditions. Notwithstanding those conditions, she entered into communication with Pupil B, then aged 15, in late 2021. In January 2022 there were two occasions of sexual activity between them; from February 2022, after Pupil B’s sixteenth birthday, there was regular sexual activity, including penetrative sex, continuing until June 2022 and beyond. In March 2023 Ms Joynes became pregnant with Pupil B’s child, and the relationship ended in June 2023.
On 17 May 2024, following a contested jury trial at Manchester Crown Court, Ms Joynes was convicted of six counts of sexual activity with a child: two counts of penetrative sexual activity with a boy aged between 13 and 15, contrary to section 9 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003; two counts of non-penetrative sexual activity with a boy aged between 13 and 15, also contrary to section 9; and two counts of sexual activity with a child in breach of trust, with a boy aged between 13 and 17 while she was in a position of trust, contrary to section 16. The offences concerned two different pupils of the school. On 4 July 2024 she was sentenced to six and a half years’ imprisonment, a restraining order and a sexual harm prevention order.
The panel was provided with a certificate of conviction dated 2 August 2024 and found the allegation proved on the balance of probabilities. The sentencing remarks record that the judge considered both pupils had been “groomed” by Ms Joynes and that she exhibited “control” over both, telling her: “you abused that position of trust, and you exploited your privileged role to start and continue contact for your own sexual gratification”, and “You showed breathtaking gall in deliberately and knowingly breaching police bail conditions … with almost identical offending behaviour as that you were on bail for”. The panel found breaches of the Teachers’ Standards, concluded that the behaviour amounted to unacceptable professional conduct in its own right, and considered that it brought the profession into disrepute.
Public Reaction and Consequences
The published decision documents institutional consequences rather than public debate: it records no public reaction, and Ms Joynes took no part in the proceedings, so no mitigation was put before the panel, which stated it had “no evidence of any mitigation circumstances relevant to the offence”. The documented consequences were the loss of her teaching post in July 2022, the May 2024 convictions, and a sentence of six and a half years’ imprisonment with a restraining order and a sexual harm prevention order. The panel recorded the harm to the two victims: the pre-sentence report stated that “the trajectory of his [Pupil B] life has been forever altered”, and Pupil B said, “Ultimately, I will forever be Rebecca’s victim and forever linked to her through our child.” It found the offending had “a serious and potentially longstanding harmful impact on the safety and/or security of the children in question” and noted the “profound impact” on her victims.
Current Status
As of the decision dated 9 December 2025, Ms Joynes is prohibited from teaching indefinitely. She cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England, and the decision maker, Marc Cavey, decided that she “shall not be entitled to apply for restoration of her eligibility to teach”. No review period was set: the panel found that her offending involved “repeated serious sexual misconduct towards children which resulted in a criminal sentence with a particularly high tariff”, and that the offences in respect of Pupil B, committed whilst on bail in relation to the offences relating to Pupil A, demonstrated her “scant regard for the seriousness of her actions”. The order takes effect when served, and she has a right of appeal to the High Court within 28 days of notice.
Impact on Their Career/Life
The prohibition ends Ms Joynes’ teaching career in England permanently: an indefinite ban, no review period and no entitlement to seek restoration of her eligibility to teach. The panel noted that it had no evidence that she had demonstrated high standards in her personal and professional conduct or contributed significantly to the education sector, and recorded “no evidence of insight, remorse or remediation from Ms Joynes”. The decision maker placed considerable weight on the very serious nature of the misconduct, which in his judgement constituted “behaviour fundamentally incompatible with working as a teacher”, and concluded that the public interest outweighed her interests.