THE SENTENCING GAP: WHY FEMALE SEX OFFENDERS RECEIVE LIGHTER SENTENCES

© By Sophie Lewis | The Grooming Files | @sophielewiseditorial

Part 4 of 5: The Female Predators Series

Catherine Pearl: 2 years 4 months.

Rebecca Joynes: 6.5 years.

Both teachers. Both convicted child sex offenders. Both abused positions of trust.

But there’s a gap.

Not just between these two cases.

Between how we sentence female offenders and how we sentence male offenders for comparable crimes.

This isn’t about whether sentences are too harsh or too lenient.

It’s about whether they’re equal.

Because when the justice system treats identical behaviour differently based on perpetrator gender, it sends a message:

Female perpetrated child sexual abuse is less serious.

And that message costs children their safety.

THE TWO SENTENCES: WHAT THE COURTS SAID

Catherine Pearl: 2 Years 4 Months

Convicted of:

Two counts of sexual activity with a girl as an adult abusing a position of trust

Offending period:

“A period of years”

Impact:

“Terrible impact” on victim (Court of Appeal judgement, July 2025)

Sentencing judge’s view:

Judge Emma Nott “was plainly right in our opinion to take a very serious view of it” (Court of Appeal)

Initial sentence: 2 years 4 months imprisonment

Sexual Harm Prevention Order: 10 years (parts later modified on appeal as “unnecessary and disproportionate”)

Sentenced: 24 January 2025, Oxford Crown Court

Rebecca Joynes: 6.5 Years

Convicted of:

Four counts of sexual activity with a child
Two counts of sexual activity with a child by a person in a position of trust

Offending:

Two victims, both 15 years old
First victim: overnight stay, sexual intercourse, £345 gift
Second victim: targeted whilst on bail for first offences
Relationship continued, Joynes became pregnant

Sentence: 6.5 years imprisonment

Additional orders:

Registered sex offender for life
Sexual Harm Prevention Order for 10 years
Restraining orders for both victims

Sentenced: 4 July 2024, Manchester Crown Court

THE OBSERVABLE GAP

Pearl:

Deputy head teacher (higher position of authority)
Abuse over “years” (longer duration)
Single victim
On school premises (institutional setting)
Sentence: 2 years 4 months

Joynes:

Teacher
Two victims
Continued offending while on bail
Sentence: 6.5 years

The difference: 4 years 2 months

WHAT EXPLAINS THE GAP?

Factual Distinctions:

Number of victims:

Pearl: 1
Joynes: 2

Continuing to offend while on bail:

Pearl: Not applicable
Joynes: Yes (targeted Boy B whilst on bail for offences against Boy A)

Pregnancy:

Pearl: No
Joynes: Yes (became pregnant by Boy B)

These factual differences provide some explanation for the sentencing gap between Pearl and Joynes.

But they don’t explain the broader pattern.

THE BROADER PATTERN: FEMALE VS MALE OFFENDERS

Methodological limitation:

As noted in Part 2, direct statistical comparison of sentences between male and female teachers convicted of similar offences requires systematic case by case analysis beyond the scope of this article series.

However, preliminary observations raise questions:

When reviewing reported cases of male teachers convicted of sexual offences against students, sentences frequently exceed those given to female offenders even where:

Number of victims is comparable
Duration of abuse is comparable
Abuse of position of trust is present
Victim age is comparable

This warrants systematic investigation.

WHAT SENTENCING LANGUAGE REVEALS

Court language provides insight into how judges perceive female vs male offenders.

Language of Mitigation in Female Offender Cases:

Common themes in sentencing remarks for female offenders:

“Out of character”
“Otherwise unblemished career”
“Fell into a relationship”
“Emotional vulnerability”
“Isolation led to poor judgment”

This language frames offending as aberration rather than predation.

Language of Aggravation in Male Offender Cases:

Common themes in sentencing remarks for male offenders:

“Grooming”
“Predatory”
“Calculated”
“Breach of trust”
“Ongoing psychological harm”

This language frames offending as deliberate predation.

The Problem:

The behaviours are often identical:

Both groom victims
Both abuse positions of trust
Both cause psychological harm
Both engage in calculated boundary violations

But the framing differs.

And framing affects sentencing.

THE PROTECTIVE FRAMING IN SENTENCING

How It Operates:

1. Character evidence carries more weight for female defendants

When a female teacher has an “unblemished career,” this is treated as significant mitigation.

When a male teacher has an “unblemished career,” this is treated as evidence of concealment: “He maintained a respectable front while abusing children.”

Same fact. Different interpretation.

2. Victimisation narratives

Female offenders are more frequently permitted to present themselves as victims:

Of isolation
Of mental health struggles
Of the victim’s “pursuit”
Of circumstances

Male offenders presenting similar narratives are typically rejected: “You are the adult. You held the power. You are responsible.”

Same defence. Different reception.

3. The “relationship” framing

Female offenders’ abuse is more frequently described as a “relationship” that “developed” or they “fell into.”

Male offenders’ abuse is described as predation, grooming, exploitation.

Language matters.

When abuse is framed as a relationship, it:

Implies mutuality
Suggests the victim had agency
Minimises the power differential
Reduces perceived culpability

THE PEARL APPEAL: A CASE STUDY

In July 2025, Catherine Pearl appealed parts of her Sexual Harm Prevention Order.

The Court of Appeal found:

Certain restrictions in the original SHPO were “unnecessary and disproportionate.”

Specifically, restrictions on internet capable devices and contact with children were replaced with a narrower prohibition: Pearl is banned from seeking or holding any position of authority or care of children until January 2035.

What this reveals:

Even after conviction for sexually abusing a child in her care over years, the legal system calibrated her restrictions to be less intrusive.

The question:

Would a male deputy head convicted of sexually abusing a student over years receive the same consideration?

Or would the restrictions be upheld as entirely proportionate given the offending?

PREGNANCY AS AN AGGRAVATING FACTOR

Rebecca Joynes became pregnant by Boy B.

This should be an aggravating factor:

Evidence of ongoing sexual contact
Physical evidence of the abuse
Additional trauma for the victim (his child exists as permanent evidence of his victimisation)
Demonstrates complete disregard for consequences

But pregnancy can also invoke sympathy:

“She’s going to be a mother”
“The child is innocent”
“Custody will be harder for her”

The protective framing operates even here.

Pregnancy by a victim should aggravate sentencing.

In some cases, it appears to mitigate it.

THE BAIL OFFENDING AGGRAVATION

Joynes’s offending while on bail for the first set of offences is a clear aggravating factor.

It demonstrates:

Continued predatory behaviour despite arrest
Disregard for legal process
Inability to control behaviour
High risk of reoffending

This appropriately contributed to her 6.5 year sentence.

But the question remains:

Would a male teacher who continued offending while on bail for child sexual abuse receive only 6.5 years?

Or would that bail breach be treated as evidence of dangerous persistent predation warranting significantly longer custody?

WHAT SENTENCING DATA SHOULD SHOW

If sentencing is gender neutral, we should see:

Comparable sentences for comparable offending
Similar weight given to aggravating factors
Similar weight given to mitigating factors
Similar language in sentencing remarks

If sentencing reflects protective framing, we see:

Lower sentences for female offenders
Greater weight to mitigation for female offenders
Different language framing female offending as aberration
Different language framing male offending as predation

Preliminary review suggests the latter.

But this requires rigorous empirical analysis.

THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES PROBLEM

UK sentencing guidelines for sexual offences are gender neutral in text.

They focus on:

Harm to victim
Culpability of offender
Aggravating factors
Mitigating factors

But guidelines are applied by humans.

And humans carry protective framing.

How Protective Framing Infiltrates Sentencing:

At the harm assessment stage:

Courts may perceive male victims as less harmed:

“He’s not traumatised the way a girl would be”
“Boys are more resilient”
“It’s different for boys”

At the culpability assessment stage:

Courts may perceive female offenders as less culpable:

“She fell into this”
“She was vulnerable herself”
“This is out of character”

At the aggravation assessment stage:

Courts may weigh aggravating factors differently:

Abuse of trust treated as less serious when perpetrator is female
Grooming behaviours framed as “developing relationship”
Power differential minimised

At the mitigation assessment stage:

Courts may give more weight to mitigation for female offenders:

Mental health
Isolation
Previous good character
Impact of custody on children

THE INSTITUTIONAL SENTENCING PROBLEM

Pearl was deputy head teacher.

This should aggravate her sentence:

Higher position of authority
Greater breach of trust
Specific safeguarding responsibilities
Institutional power to conceal abuse

But it may have operated differently:

Her senior position, professional reputation, and “unblemished career” may have been treated as mitigating factors:

“She’s thrown away a distinguished career”
“She held a position of respect”
“This is so out of character for someone of her standing”

The same institutional authority that facilitated her abuse becomes evidence of how much she has to lose.

This is protective framing in judicial reasoning.

WHAT THE VICTIMS EXPERIENCE

When Sentences Are Lower:

For victims of female perpetrators who receive lighter sentences than comparable male offenders:

The message received is:

“What happened to you was less serious”
“Your abuser is less dangerous”
“The system doesn’t view this the same way”

This affects:

Willingness to report
Participation in prosecution
Recovery process
Trust in justice system

When Abuse Is Reframed:

When courts describe abuse as a “relationship” or suggest the victim “pursued” the adult:

The message is:

“You had agency in this”
“This wasn’t really abuse”
“You’re partly responsible”

For child victims, this is revictimisation.

THE PUBLIC PERCEPTION PROBLEM

Sentencing shapes public understanding of harm.

When we see:

Male teacher: 12+ years for sexual abuse of student
Female teacher: 2-6 years for sexual abuse of student

The public learns:

Female perpetrated abuse is less serious
Male victims are harmed less
Women who abuse children deserve more sympathy

This reinforces:

Underreporting by male victims
Protective framing in institutions
Lighter sentences in future cases

It’s a self-reinforcing cycle.

THE RESEARCH QUESTION

What we need:

Systematic analysis of sentencing in child sexual abuse cases comparing:

Male vs female perpetrators
Controlling for:
Number of victims
Age of victims
Duration of abuse
Aggravating factors
Mitigating factors
Guilty plea vs trial

This would reveal:

Whether a sentencing gap exists
How large it is
What factors explain it
Whether it’s justified by case differences or reflects bias

Until we have this data, we’re working from:

Individual case observations
Anecdotal patterns
Preliminary reviews

But the pattern is visible enough to warrant investigation.

WHAT EQUAL SENTENCING WOULD LOOK LIKE

Equal sentencing doesn’t mean:

Identical sentences for all offenders
Ignoring individual case factors
Mechanical application of guidelines

It means:

Comparable weight to comparable aggravating factors
Comparable weight to comparable mitigating factors
Gender neutral language in sentencing remarks
Focus on harm to victim, not gender of perpetrator
Recognition that all child sexual abuse is serious

THE CATHERINE PEARL QUESTION

2 years 4 months for:

Deputy head teacher
Sexual abuse of student in her care
Abuse over “years”
Committed in school setting
Terrible impact on victim

Is this sentence proportionate to the harm?

Or does it reflect protective framing?

The Court of Appeal confirmed the sentencing judge “was plainly right to take a very serious view” of the offending.

But 2 years 4 months for years of abuse by a deputy head teacher with safeguarding responsibilities?

The question stands.

THE REBECCA JOYNES QUESTION

6.5 years for:

Teacher
Two 15 year old victims
Sexual intercourse with both
£345 gift (material grooming)
Overnight stay at her flat
Continued offending while on bail
Became pregnant by second victim

Is this sentence proportionate to the harm?

Or does it also reflect protective framing?

Because while 6.5 years is significantly more than Pearl’s sentence, the question remains:

Would a male teacher who:

Sexually abused two 15 year old students
Bought them expensive gifts
Took them to his flat
Got one pregnant
Continued offending while on bail

…receive only 6.5 years?

WHAT COMES NEXT

In Part 5, we’ll examine prevention: what Catherine Pearl and Rebecca Joynes teach us about recognition, response, and building safeguarding frameworks that protect all children regardless of perpetrator gender.

We’ll address:

Warning signs we missed
Institutional failures
How to break the cycle of invisibility
What gender neutral safeguarding actually looks like
How to support victims regardless of perpetrator gender

The sentencing gap isn’t just about fairness to defendants.

It’s about protection for potential victims.

Because when sentences are lower, the message is clear:

This abuse is less serious.

And predators hear that message too.

SOURCES & VERIFICATION

All facts in this article 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

Sentencing analysis:

Sentencing Council guidelines for sexual offences
Court of Appeal judgements
Academic literature on gender bias in sentencing
Ministry of Justice statistics (preliminary review)

RESOURCES & SUPPORT

If you’ve been affected by the issues in this article:

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)

ABOUT THIS RESEARCH

This article 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

Read the full Female Predators series:

Part 1: The Invisible Predator
Part 2: The Protective Framing Problem
Part 3: Different Victims, Different Tactics
Part 4: The Sentencing Gap (you are here)
Part 5: Breaking the Pattern (coming next)

This is survivor led, evidence based journalism. If this work matters to you, share it.

Sophie