© By Sophie Lewis | The Grooming Files | @sophielewiseditorial
Part 5 of 5: The Female Predators Series
Two teachers.
Two convictions.
Years of abuse that happened in plain sight.
Catherine Pearl: Deputy head teacher. Safeguarding responsibility. Abused a student for years, including on school premises.
Rebecca Joynes: Teacher. Arrested, suspended, placed on bail. Continued offending.
The question isn’t just what went wrong.
The question is: what do we do now?
Because these cases aren’t anomalies.
They’re warnings.
Warnings that our safeguarding frameworks have a blind spot.
Warnings that protective framing creates operational space for predators.
Warnings that children are being harmed because we refuse to see female perpetrators.
This final part isn’t about blame.
It’s about change.
What Catherine Pearl and Rebecca Joynes teach us about recognition, response, and building safeguarding that actually protects all children.
WHAT WE MISSED: THE WARNING SIGNS
Catherine Pearl: The Institutional Blind Spot
Pearl was deputy head teacher at Didcot Girls’ School.
She held explicit safeguarding responsibilities.
She abused a student over “a period of years.”
Some of this abuse occurred on school premises.
What warning signs should have been visible?
While specific details of Pearl’s grooming behaviours haven’t been made public, the facts we do know reveal patterns:
Duration: “Years”
Abuse that continues for years doesn’t happen in complete secrecy.
There are interactions. Patterns. Behaviours.
Someone saw something.
The question is: did they report it? And if they did, how was it handled?
Location: School Premises
Abuse occurring on school grounds requires:
- Access to private spaces
- Time when others aren’t present
- Ability to isolate the victim
- Normalisation of one-on-one contact
All of these should trigger institutional awareness.
But when the perpetrator is the deputy head responsible for safeguarding, who questions her need for private meetings with vulnerable students?
This is the institutional blind spot in action.
Position: Deputy Head Teacher
Pearl’s senior position created multiple advantages:
Authority to be alone with students:
- “I need to speak with her about pastoral concerns”
- “I’m monitoring her wellbeing”
- “This is part of my safeguarding role”
Power to control narrative:
- If concerns were raised, she had authority to dismiss them
- She could reframe boundary violations as professional care
- Her position created presumption of appropriate behaviour
Access to vulnerable students:
- She knew which students were isolated
- She knew which students lacked strong support networks
- She had legitimate access to personal information
This is predatory exploitation of institutional role.
And it went undetected for years.
Rebecca Joynes: The Bail Period Failure
After being arrested for sexual offences against Boy A, Joynes was:
- Suspended from her teaching position
- Placed on bail
- Subject to safeguarding restrictions
She then targeted Boy B.
This represents catastrophic systemic failure.
What warning signs were missed?
The Material Grooming Pattern:
Joynes took Boy A to the Trafford Centre and bought him a £345 designer belt before taking him to her flat.
This happened in public.
In a busy shopping centre.
With shop assistants, security, other shoppers present.
No one reported it.
Why?
Because a young woman buying an expensive gift for a teenage boy doesn’t trigger alarm.
It reads as:
- Generous girlfriend
- Kind teacher
- Big sister figure
Not grooming.
This is protective framing preventing recognition.
The Overnight Stay:
On 5 October 2021, Joynes arranged for 15 year old Boy A to stay overnight at her flat.
Someone knew.
Did his parents think he was elsewhere?
Did friends know where he was?
Did anyone question why a 30 year old teacher had a 15 year old student staying overnight?
The protective framing creates plausibility:
“She’s helping him out”
“He must be in some kind of trouble at home”
“She’s going above and beyond”
A male teacher in the same situation would face immediate suspicion.
The Contact Pattern:
Joynes gave Boy A most of the digits of her phone number and had him guess the rest.
This is sophisticated grooming:
- Creates a “game” (he’s actively participating)
- Establishes private communication channel
- Gives him sense of agency (he “figured it out”)
- Creates shared secret
- Builds foundation for escalation
This pattern should be in safeguarding training.
But it’s not, because we train staff to watch for male predators.
The Bail Period Contact:
While on bail for offences against Boy A, Joynes was able to access Boy B.
How?
The specifics haven’t been made public, but the fact she could continue offending while under investigation reveals:
Inadequate monitoring:
- Bail conditions may not have been sufficiently restrictive
- Compliance may not have been adequately monitored
- Community awareness may have been insufficient
Protective framing created operational space:
- “Surely this is a misunderstanding”
- “She doesn’t seem like that type of person”
- “The allegations are probably false”
A male teacher on bail for child sexual abuse would face:
- High level community awareness
- Social isolation
- Intense scrutiny
- Practical difficulty accessing potential victims
Joynes continued offending because protective framing created doubt, and doubt created opportunity.
WHAT INSTITUTIONS FAILED TO DO
Didcot Girls’ School: The Pearl Response
After Pearl’s sentencing on 24 January 2025, the school deleted social media posts featuring her from a 2019 assembly.
This happened on 27 January 2025.
Three days after sentencing.
Those posts had been public for six years.
Timeline of institutional knowledge:
- 2023: Offences reported to Thames Valley Police
- 9 August 2023: Pearl arrested
- 10 October 2024: Pearl charged
- November 2024: Pearl pleaded guilty
- 24 January 2025: Pearl sentenced
- 27 January 2025: School deleted social media posts
For over a year between arrest and sentencing, the school maintained public content celebrating a person under investigation for child sexual abuse.
Why?
Possible explanations:
1. Presumption of innocence
The school may have felt it inappropriate to remove content before conviction.
This is reasonable but creates problems:
- Posts celebrating someone arrested for child abuse remain visible
- Victims see their abuser publicly honoured
- Community receives no signal that the school takes allegations seriously
2. Reputational concern
Removing posts would draw attention to the investigation.
This prioritises institutional reputation over victim welfare.
3. Protective framing
“She can’t have done this” → “Wait for the outcome” → “It must be a misunderstanding”
Even after guilty plea, the posts remained until after sentencing.
What the school should have done:
Upon arrest or charging:
- Remove public content featuring the accused
- Provide statement acknowledging investigation without prejudging outcome
- Offer support to current students
- Review safeguarding procedures
- Conduct internal review of any previous concerns
This balances:
- Presumption of innocence for the accused
- Protection and support for victims
- Institutional transparency
- Safeguarding responsibility
The Manchester School: The Joynes Response
Specific institutional responses from Joynes’s school haven’t been publicly detailed.
But we know:
- She was suspended after arrest for offences against Boy A
- She was able to access Boy B while on bail
- The relationship with Boy B continued until she was arrested again
Questions this raises:
1. Were students informed appropriately?
When a teacher is arrested for child sexual abuse, how do you inform the student body without compromising the investigation or the accused’s rights?
There’s no easy answer, but silence creates risk.
2. Were parents informed?
Did parents of students know a teacher had been arrested for child sexual abuse?
This creates tension between:
- Privacy for the accused
- Safety information for parents
- Investigation integrity
But parents have a right to safeguarding information.
3. What monitoring was in place during suspension?
Joynes was suspended from her teaching role.
But suspension doesn’t prevent contact with students outside school.
Was there monitoring of:
- Social media contact?
- Meeting students in public places?
- Continued communication?
If not, why not?
WHAT NEEDS TO CHANGE: RECOGNITION
1. Gender Neutral Safeguarding Training
Current approach:
- Focus on male predators
- Warning signs based on male perpetrator patterns
- Implicit assumption that female staff are safer
Required approach:
Training that focuses on behaviours, not demographics:
Warning signs regardless of staff gender:
- Seeking excessive one-on-one time with students
- Contact outside school hours
- Private communication channels (personal phone, social media)
- Gift giving beyond token items
- Sharing personal information with students
- Students defending the staff member against concerns
- Boundary violations (physical, emotional, professional)
- Isolation of particular students
- Visible favouritism
- Special relationships or “mentoring” that excludes oversight
These behaviours are concerning regardless of who exhibits them.
2. Recognising Material Grooming
The £345 belt wasn’t generosity.
It was grooming.
Staff need training to recognise:
- Expensive or inappropriate gifts to students
- Taking students shopping
- Buying students meals
- Paying for student activities
- Financial support beyond school resources
Current response:
“How kind of her to help that struggling student”
Required response:
“Why is she giving expensive gifts to a student? This needs to be reported.”
3. Recognising Emotional Grooming
Predators targeting female victims often use emotional intimacy as primary grooming mechanism.
Staff need training to recognise:
- Teacher sharing personal problems with student
- Student becoming confidante for teacher’s issues
- “Special connection” narratives
- Blurred professional boundaries
- Excessive focus on one student’s emotional wellbeing
- Private meetings without clear professional purpose
- Contact during school holidays
Current response:
“She really cares about that student’s wellbeing”
Required response:
“Those boundaries are inappropriate. This needs to be addressed.”
4. Recognising Positional Grooming
Catherine Pearl used her deputy head position to access and abuse a vulnerable student.
Staff need training to recognise that senior positions create greater risk, not less:
- More authority to be alone with students
- More power to control narrative if concerns arise
- More institutional trust
- More access to vulnerable student information
- More ability to reframe inappropriate behaviour as professional duty
Senior staff should face MORE scrutiny, not less.
WHAT NEEDS TO CHANGE: RESPONSE
1. Taking Reports Seriously Regardless of Accused Gender
Current problem:
When concerns are raised about female staff, institutional response often includes:
- “Are you sure you’re not misunderstanding?”
- “She’s always been wonderful with students”
- “Could this be a personality conflict?”
- “Let’s not jump to conclusions”
This delays response.
Delay creates more victims.
Required approach:
All safeguarding concerns are treated with equal seriousness regardless of accused gender.
This means:
- Same investigation procedures
- Same urgency
- Same suspension decisions based on risk, not gender
- Same information sharing with authorities
- Same support for alleged victims
Gender neutral response protocols.
2. Addressing Bail Period Risk
Joynes continued offending while on bail.
This should not have been possible.
What’s needed:
Robust bail conditions for anyone accused of child sexual abuse:
- No contact with children under 18
- Restrictions on locations (schools, youth clubs, areas where children congregate)
- Social media monitoring
- Regular check-ins with authorities
- Community notification where appropriate
Monitoring compliance:
- Regular verification
- Consequences for breaches
- Information sharing between police and schools
The fact that Joynes could access Boy B while on bail for offences against Boy A represents systemic failure.
3. Institutional Transparency
When a teacher is arrested for child sexual abuse, institutions face difficult decisions:
What to tell students?
What to tell parents?
What to say publicly?
Current approach often prioritises:
- Institutional reputation
- Privacy for the accused
- Avoiding panic
This can result in silence.
Silence creates:
- Continued risk
- Loss of trust when truth emerges
- Message that institution prioritises reputation over safety
Required approach:
Transparent communication that balances:
- Right to fair investigation for accused
- Right to safety information for community
- Support for victims
- Institutional accountability
Example communication:
“We can confirm that a member of staff has been arrested and is under investigation for serious allegations. The individual has been suspended pending the outcome of the investigation. We are working closely with police and safeguarding authorities. Support is available for any student who needs it. We take safeguarding extremely seriously and are reviewing our procedures.”
This provides:
- Factual information
- Reassurance about action taken
- Support offer
- Institutional accountability
Without:
- Identifying the accused
- Prejudging the outcome
- Creating panic
WHAT NEEDS TO CHANGE: PREVENTION
1. Breaking Protective Framing in Recruitment
Current approach:
Female candidates for teaching and youth work roles benefit from protective framing:
- Assumed to be inherently safer
- Less scrutiny of motivation for working with children
- References less likely to flag boundary concerns
- Background checks same as male candidates, but informal assessment differs
This creates opportunity for predators.
Required approach:
Gender neutral assessment:
- Same scrutiny of motivation regardless of gender
- Same assessment of boundary awareness
- Same level of reference checking
- Same questions about previous roles and why they left
Questions to ask all candidates:
- Why do you want to work with children?
- Describe your understanding of professional boundaries
- How would you handle a student seeking excessive personal contact?
- What would you do if a colleague was sharing personal problems with a student?
- Describe a time you had to maintain professional boundaries in a difficult situation
These questions matter regardless of candidate gender.
2. Ongoing Professional Supervision
Current problem:
Once hired, staff supervision often focuses on:
- Academic performance
- Administrative duties
- Curriculum delivery
Boundary maintenance and professional relationships receive less attention.
Required approach:
Regular supervision that includes:
- Discussion of any student relationships causing concern
- Reflection on boundary maintenance
- Peer review of one-on-one student contact
- Review of any gifts given or received
- Monitoring of out-of-hours contact
- Discussion of emotional challenges of pastoral care
This isn’t about distrust.
It’s about support and accountability.
All staff need structures that help them maintain boundaries.
3. Peer Accountability Culture
Pearl abused a student for years.
Someone saw something.
Did they report it?
If they did, what happened?
If they didn’t, why not?
Current problem:
Staff may hesitate to report concerns about colleagues because:
- “I might be wrong”
- “It could harm their career”
- “They’re really good at their job”
- “I don’t want to cause trouble”
When the colleague is female, protective framing intensifies hesitation:
- “Women don’t do that”
- “I must be misinterpreting”
- “She’s just very caring”
Required approach:
Culture where reporting concerns is:
- Expected
- Supported
- Protected
- Acted upon
This requires:
- Clear reporting procedures
- Protection for those who report
- Feedback on what happened with the report
- Consequences for not reporting concerns
- Senior leadership modelling the behaviour
“If you see something, say something” must apply equally regardless of who the concern is about.
4. Student Education on Grooming
Current approach:
We teach children to watch for:
- Strangers offering gifts
- Adults asking them to keep secrets
- Inappropriate touch
We rarely teach:
- Teachers can be abusers
- Women can be predators
- Grooming can look like special attention
- Professional boundaries matter
Required approach:
Age-appropriate education that includes:
For all ages:
- Adults in positions of trust must maintain professional boundaries
- Gifts from teachers beyond token items are inappropriate
- Private contact outside school needs parental knowledge
- Special relationships with teachers that exclude oversight are concerning
- You can report concerns even if you’re not sure
For older students:
- What grooming looks like
- How predators create isolation
- Why you’re not to blame
- How to recognise boundary violations
- Where to get help
This education must be gender neutral:
“Teachers of any gender must maintain boundaries”
Not: “Watch out for male teachers”
WHAT NEEDS TO CHANGE: SUPPORTING VICTIMS
For Male Victims of Female Perpetrators
Current barriers:
- Cultural scripts that deny victimisation (“You’re lucky”)
- Lack of language to describe experience
- Fear of not being believed
- Minimisation of harm
- Shame
Required support:
Recognition that:
- Male victims of female perpetrators experience serious trauma
- The protective framing that denies their victimisation is harmful
- They deserve the same support as any other abuse victim
- Their experience is valid regardless of cultural narratives
Specific interventions:
- Training for support services on male victimisation
- Peer support groups specifically for male survivors
- Educational resources that recognise male victimisation
- Media literacy addressing harmful narratives about “lucky” boys
Language matters:
Not: “Affair with teacher”
Use: “Sexual abuse by teacher”
Not: “Relationship”
Use: “Grooming and exploitation”
Not: “Sex scandal”
Use: “Child sexual abuse”
For Female Victims of Female Perpetrators
Current barriers:
- Limited cultural language for female-on-female child sexual abuse
- Double protective framing (women don’t do that + same-sex trust)
- Potential homophobic responses
- Abuse hidden within “mentoring” narratives
- Additional isolation
Required support:
Recognition that:
- Female perpetrators can abuse female victims
- This abuse is serious and harmful
- Victims need specialised support
- Professional boundaries matter in same-sex contexts
Specific interventions:
- Training for support services on female perpetration
- Specialist resources for female victims of female abusers
- Support that addresses confusion about trust relationships
- Frameworks that don’t conflate same-sex abuse with LGBTQ+ issues
The abuse is about power and exploitation, not sexual orientation.
WHAT NEEDS TO CHANGE: INSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY
The Didcot Girls’ School Question
Pearl abused a student for years.
She was deputy head with safeguarding responsibilities.
Some abuse occurred on school premises.
Questions the school must answer:
1. What concerns were raised before 2023?
Were there previous complaints, observations, or concerns about Pearl’s relationships with students?
If yes, how were they handled?
If no, why not?
2. What safeguarding procedures were in place?
What systems existed to monitor:
- One-on-one contact between staff and students
- Private meetings
- Out-of-hours contact
- Boundary maintenance
Were these procedures followed?
If not, why not?
3. What has changed since Pearl’s conviction?
What specific procedural changes have been implemented to prevent similar abuse?
Has there been training on:
- Female perpetration
- Gender neutral safeguarding
- Positional grooming
- Recognising abuse by senior staff
4. What support was provided to the victim?
What support services were offered?
How was the victim protected during the investigation?
What ongoing support is available?
These aren’t rhetorical questions.
They’re accountability questions.
And the school owes its community answers.
The Manchester School Question
Similar questions apply to Joynes’s school:
1. What enabled her access to Boy B while on bail?
What monitoring was in place?
Was information about her arrest shared appropriately within the school?
Were parents informed?
2. Were there previous concerns?
Did anyone raise concerns about Joynes’s relationships with students before Boy A reported?
If yes, how were they handled?
If no, why not?
3. What has changed?
What specific safeguarding improvements have been implemented?
What training has been provided?
How have supervision procedures changed?
Accountability isn’t about blame.
It’s about learning and preventing future harm.
WHAT SURVIVORS NEED FROM US
Belief
Regardless of perpetrator gender.
Regardless of victim gender.
Regardless of how the abuse was framed.
When someone discloses abuse by a female perpetrator:
Believe them.
Validation
The harm is real.
Male victims of female perpetrators were harmed.
Female victims of female perpetrators were harmed.
The protective framing that minimises this harm is wrong.
Your experience is valid.
Support
Survivor-informed services.
Trauma-informed care.
Long-term support.
Recovering from child sexual abuse is a journey, not an event.
Survivors need:
- Therapeutic support
- Peer networks
- Practical assistance
- Advocacy
- Patience
This is true regardless of perpetrator gender.
Justice
Equal sentencing.
Equal investigation.
Equal institutional response.
When sentences are lower for female perpetrators, survivors receive the message that their harm mattered less.
This is revictimisation.
Prevention
Survivors need us to prevent future abuse.
This means:
- Implementing gender-neutral safeguarding
- Breaking protective framing
- Training staff to recognise all perpetrator patterns
- Creating cultures of accountability
- Taking reports seriously regardless of accused gender
The best way to honour survivors is to prevent future victims.
WHAT THIS SERIES HAS SHOWN
Part 1: The Invisible Predator
Catherine Pearl and Rebecca Joynes operated in a cultural blind spot.
Female predators are invisible not because they don’t exist, but because we refuse to see them.
Part 2: The Protective Framing Problem
The automatic assumption that women are inherently safe creates operational advantages for predators.
Protective framing doesn’t protect children.
It protects perpetrators.
Part 3: Different Victims, Different Tactics
Female predators adapt their grooming based on victim gender.
Material grooming, status elevation, emotional intimacy, positional authority.
Different tactics, same predation, equal harm.
Part 4: The Sentencing Gap
Catherine Pearl: 2 years 4 months.
Rebecca Joynes: 6.5 years.
The sentencing gap reflects protective framing in courtrooms.
When sentences are lower, the message is clear: this abuse is less serious.
Part 5: Breaking the Pattern
We know what went wrong.
We know what needs to change.
The question is: will we do it?
THE FINAL QUESTION
How many more Catherine Pearls are operating right now?
How many more Rebecca Joynes are grooming students?
How many victims aren’t reporting because they know they won’t be believed?
How many institutions are ignoring concerns because “women don’t do that”?
We have the knowledge.
We have the evidence.
We have the case studies.
What we need is the will to act.
CONCRETE ACTIONS: WHAT TO DO NOW
For Schools and Youth Organisations:
1. Review safeguarding training
Is it gender neutral?
Does it include female perpetrator patterns?
Does it address protective framing?
If not, change it.
2. Audit supervision procedures
Do they monitor one-on-one contact regardless of staff gender?
Do they review boundary maintenance?
Do they create peer accountability?
If not, implement them.
3. Create transparent reporting systems
Can staff report concerns about colleagues without fear?
Are reports acted upon?
Is feedback provided?
If not, build them.
4. Educate students
Do they know what grooming looks like?
Do they understand professional boundaries?
Do they know how to report concerns?
If not, teach them.
For Policymakers:
1. Commission research on sentencing disparities
Systematic analysis comparing sentences for male vs female perpetrators controlling for case factors.
We need data.
2. Review sentencing guidelines
Ensure they’re applied equally regardless of perpetrator gender.
Gender neutral in practice, not just in text.
3. Fund specialist support services
For male victims of female perpetrators.
For female victims of female perpetrators.
For all survivors of child sexual abuse.
Adequate funding, specialist training, long-term support.
4. Mandate gender neutral safeguarding training
In all settings working with children.
Make it mandatory.
Make it comprehensive.
Make it ongoing.
For Media:
1. Use accurate language
Not “affair” – sexual abuse
Not “relationship” – grooming and exploitation
Not “sex scandal” – child sexual abuse
Language shapes perception. Get it right.
2. Give equal coverage
Female perpetrators receive less media attention.
This reinforces invisibility.
Cover all child sexual abuse cases seriously, regardless of perpetrator gender.
3. Avoid sensationalism
Don’t frame female perpetration as titillating.
Don’t focus on “attractive teacher” narratives.
Frame it as the serious crime it is.
4. Centre victim impact
Not the perpetrator’s lost career.
Not their attractiveness.
Not whether they cried in court.
The harm to victims.
For All of Us:
1. Examine our own protective framing
Do you automatically trust female authority figures more than male?
Do you minimise harm when perpetrators are female?
Do you view male victims differently?
We all carry protective framing. Acknowledge it. Challenge it.
2. Believe survivors
Regardless of perpetrator gender.
Regardless of victim gender.
Regardless of how the abuse was framed.
Believe them.
3. Report concerns
If you see boundary violations, report them.
Regardless of who is violating boundaries.
“If you see something, say something” applies to all staff.
4. Share this information
The invisibility of female predators is maintained by silence.
Break the silence.
Share these articles.
Discuss these issues.
Challenge protective framing when you see it.
Visibility is prevention.
THE VICTIMS WHO SHOWED BRAVERY
Catherine Pearl’s victim:
Detective Constable Sarah Tibble said the victim “had shown such bravery in coming forward to report the offences.”
That bravery had to overcome:
- The authority differential
- The institutional trust in Pearl
- The protective framing
- The fear of not being believed
You were brave. You were believed. You matter.
Boy A and Boy B:
You came forward despite cultural scripts telling you that you were “lucky,” not harmed.
You participated in prosecution despite knowing many people wouldn’t understand.
You were victims of serious crime.
You were brave. You deserve support. You matter.
To all survivors of female-perpetrated abuse:
Your experience is valid.
Your harm is real.
You deserved protection.
You deserve support now.
You matter.
THE FINAL MESSAGE
Catherine Pearl: Deputy head teacher. Convicted child sex offender. 2 years 4 months.
Rebecca Joynes: Teacher. Convicted child sex offender. 6.5 years.
Both operated in plain sight.
Both exploited protective framing.
Both caused serious harm.
Both were preventable.
We can’t change what happened to their victims.
But we can prevent future victims.
We can implement gender-neutral safeguarding.
We can break protective framing.
We can believe survivors.
We can demand equal sentencing.
We can create cultures of accountability.
We can see female predators.
The question isn’t whether female predators exist.
They do.
The question is: what are we going to do about it?
This is the end of the series.
But it’s the beginning of the work.
SOURCES & VERIFICATION
All facts in this series are drawn from:
Catherine Pearl case:
- BBC News, 27 January 2025
- BBC News, 30 July 2025
- Court of Appeal judgement, July 2025
- Thames Valley Police statements
Rebecca Joynes case:
- Crown Prosecution Service press release, 4 July 2024
- Manchester Crown Court proceedings, May 2024
Safeguarding research:
- NSPCC guidance on child sexual abuse
- Stop It Now UK resources
- Academic literature on female perpetration
- Safeguarding policy frameworks
RESOURCES & SUPPORT
If you’ve been affected by the issues in this series:
Stop It Now UK – Confidential helpline for preventing child sexual abuse
https://www.stopitnow.org.uk
NAPAC – Support for adult survivors of childhood abuse
https://napac.org.uk
Survivors UK – Support for male survivors
https://www.survivorsuk.org
The Survivors Trust – Specialist support services
https://www.thesurvivorstrust.org
If a child is at immediate risk:
UK: Call 999 (emergency) or 101 (non-emergency)
For professionals:
NSPCC Learning – Safeguarding resources and training
https://learning.nspcc.org.uk
Lucy Faithfull Foundation – Preventing child sexual abuse
https://www.lucyfaithfull.org.uk
ABOUT THIS RESEARCH
This series is based exclusively on publicly available court documents, official statements from the Crown Prosecution Service and police forces, verified media reporting from established news outlets (BBC, official court reporters), and Court of Appeal judgements. All case details are matters of public record.
Sophie Lewis is a final year BA (Hons) Social Sciences student specialising in criminology and forensic psychology at the Open University, and an NUJ accredited investigative journalist. She operates The Grooming Files, an independent research platform documenting predator behaviour patterns and institutional safeguarding failures.
Contact: sophie.editorial@outlook.com
THE COMPLETE SERIES
Part 1: The Invisible Predator
Two teachers, two convictions, one pattern we refuse to see
Part 2: The Protective Framing Problem
How “women don’t do that” enabled years of abuse
Part 3: Different Victims, Different Tactics
Male vs female victims: how female predators adapt their approach
Part 4: The Sentencing Gap
Why female sex offenders receive lighter sentences
Part 5: Breaking the Pattern (you are here)
What Catherine Pearl and Rebecca Joynes teach us about prevention
This is survivor led, evidence based journalism.
If this work matters to you, share it.
The invisibility of female predators is maintained by silence.
Break the silence.
Sophie
END OF SERIES
The Grooming Files 
Leave a comment