Ms Rebecca Joynes

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 Rebecca Joynes

Teacher reference number: 3943931

Teacher's date of birth: 30 December 1993

Location teacher worked: Greater Manchester, North West England

Date of professional conduct panel: 4 December 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 Rebecca Joynes formerly employed in Greater Manchester, North West 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 Rebecca Joynes: 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 4 Documents 4 Witnesses 4 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 9 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 12 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Ms Rebecca Joynes Teacher ref number: 3943931 Teacher date of birth: 30 December 1993 TRA reference: 20992 Date of determination: 4 December 2025 Former employer: [REDACTED] Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 4 December 2025 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Ms Rebecca Joynes. The panel members were Mr Philip Thompson (teacher panellist – in the chair), Ms Victoria Miller (teacher panellist) and Ms Wendy Shannon (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr John Lucarotti of Blake Morgan solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Shirlie Duckworth of Lincoln House Chambers instructed by Brabners LLP solicitors. Ms Joynes was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegation set out in the notice of hearing dated 29 August 2025. It was alleged that Ms Joynes was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, namely that, on 17 May 2024, she was convicted at Manchester Crown Court of: 1. Two counts of sexual activity with a child in that you engaged in penetrative sexual activity with a boy aged between 13 to 15 years old, contrary to section 9 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. 2. Two counts of sexual activity with a child in that you engaged in non-penetrative sexual activity with a boy aged between 13 to 15 years old, contrary to section 9 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. 3. Two counts of sexual activity with a child in breach of trust in that you had sexual activity with a boy aged between 13 to 17 years old while you were in a position of trust in relation to that boy, contrary to section 16 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Ms Joynes has not responded to the allegation or attended the hearing. In the absence of a response from the teacher, the allegation is not admitted. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Notice of referral and notice of proceedings – pages 2 to 17 Section 2: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 18 to 119 Section 3: Notice of Hearing and Proof of Service – pages 120 to 132 In addition, the panel agreed to accept a further document – the email (referred to above) from the prison, dated 1 December 2025. The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing. In the consideration of this case, the panel had regard to the Procedures. Witnesses The panel did not hear any oral evidence from witnesses. 5 Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: On 22 July 2022, Ms Joynes was referred to the TRA by the secondary school at which she had been employed as a maths teacher until her dismissal for gross misconduct on 21 July 2022. The school informed the TRA that Ms Joynes was under investigation for sexual activity with a child. 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. These offences related to two different male pupils of the school at which she had been a teacher. On 4 July 2024, Ms Joynes was sentenced at Manchester Crown Court to six and a half years imprisonment, a restraining order and a sexual harm prevention order. Findings of fact The panel found the following allegation against Ms Joynes proved: She was convicted of a relevant offence, namely that, on 17 May 2024, she was convicted at Manchester Crown Court of: 1. Two counts of sexual activity with a child in that you engaged in penetrative sexual activity with a boy aged between 13 to 15 years old, contrary to section 9 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. 2. Two counts of sexual activity with a child in that you engaged in non- penetrative sexual activity with a boy aged between 13 to 15 years old, contrary to section 9 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. 3. Two counts of sexual activity with a child in breach of trust in that you had sexual activity with a boy aged between 13 to 17 years old while you were in a position of trust in relation to that boy, contrary to section 16 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The panel was provided with a certificate of conviction dated 2 August 2024 which recorded the convictions of 17 May 2024. It noted that the recorded convictions corresponded with those alleged against Ms Joynes in these proceedings. It was also provided with the sentencing remarks of Individual A dated 4 July 2024. The panel noted the following factual background from the sentencing remarks. • Ms Joynes had started teaching at the school in 2018 and she taught children between the ages of 11 to 18. 6 • The events which led to the matters which were the subject of the criminal proceedings started in October 2021, when the two victims (Pupil A and Pupil B) were in Year 11 and taught maths by Ms Joynes. • There was sexual activity (including penetrative sex) between Ms Joynes and Pupil A on 15 October 2021. • This was reported to the police and Ms Joynes was suspended from working at the school the following week and placed under bail conditions by the police. • Notwithstanding those bail conditions, Ms Joynes entered into communication with Pupil B (who was 15) during late 2021. • In January 2022, there were two occasions of sexual activity (kisses) between Ms Joynes and Pupil B. • From February 2022, and after Pupil B’s 16th birthday, there was regular sexual activity between Ms Joynes and Pupil B, including penetrative sex. • This continued until June 2022, when Pupil B left school, and then beyond that. • In March 2023, Ms Joynes became pregnant with Pupil B’s child. The relationship ended in June 2023. The panel decided that, on the balance of probabilities, Ms Joynes was convicted as set out in the allegation. Findings as to conviction of a relevant offence Having found the allegation proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of the proven allegation amounted to a conviction for a relevant offence. In doing so, the panel had regard to the document Teacher misconduct: The prohibition of teachers (“the Advice”). The panel first considered whether Ms Joynes proven conduct involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that, by reference to Part 2, Ms Joynes was in breach of the following standards: • Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by 7 o treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position o having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions o showing tolerance of and respect for the rights of others • Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities. The panel noted that Ms Joynes’ actions were relevant to teaching, working with children and/or working in an education setting, as any sexual activity with a child, whether within an education setting or not, is highly relevant to the person’s fitness to teach. The panel noted that the behaviour involved in committing the offence had a serious and potentially longstanding harmful impact on the safety and/or security of the children in question. It noted what was said in the pre-sentence report “that the trajectory of his [Pupil B] life has been forever altered” and that Pupil B had said, “Ultimately, I will forever be Rebecca’s victim and forever linked to her through our child.” It further noted that in her sentencing remarks, Individual A considered that both pupils had been “groomed” by Ms Joynes and that she also exhibited “control” over both. The panel also took account of the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. The panel considered that Ms Joynes’ behaviour in committing the offence could affect public confidence in the teaching profession, given the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the community. The panel noted that Ms Joynes’ behaviour ultimately led to a sentence of six and a half years imprisonment, which was indicative of the seriousness of the offences committed. The panel also considered the offences listed on pages 12 and 13 of the Advice. This was a case concerning multiple offences involving sexual activity with children, which the Advice states is likely to be considered a relevant offence. The panel was satisfied that these were extremely serious offences. The panel noted the following sentencing remarks by Individual A in this regard: “you abused that position of trust, and you exploited your privileged role to start and continue contact for your own sexual gratification.” 8 “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 had no evidence of any mitigation circumstances relevant to the offence. The panel concluded that the seriousness of the offending behaviour that led to the co