Guest blog Professor Kieran McCartan
The case of Bronwen James in the south-west of England raises the question of how we understand females who sexually abuse children and young people, and how we safeguard them within our schools and educational establishments. James was found guilty by a jury in Winchester of sexual offences related to a male student in her care when she was a teacher, and at the conclusion of the trial, further information came to light of her sexually abusing two female pupils. This case is important as it raises questions about the nature of child sexual abuse, safeguarding in schools, risk management, and how best to respond as well as prevent sexual abuse by people in positions of trust.
The research and evidence base around women who commit sexual abuse of children is quite sparse, and the topic is under-researched and underdeveloped. There are several reasons for this, including that there are fewer cases of females who sexually abuse children reported to the police, prosecuted, and therefore in the criminal justice system. Traditionally, child sexual abuse is seen as a male crime, and the criminal justice research and evidence support this. However, this does not mean that women cannot and do not commit child sexual abuse. It is important to understand that women who commit crimes are often processed, sentenced and managed differently throughout the criminal justice system, especially compared to males, with more points of intervention and divergence. Therefore, there are scale, logistical and management reasons they are a smaller cohort. Another important reason is that boys are less likely to come forward and report sexual abuse in general, but specifically by women, as it sits at odds with cultural ideas linked to masculinity, sex, and power. This is reinforced in society by the media and social commentary that boys have sexual relations as a rite of passage and not necessarily abuse, in contradiction to how it is framed when it’s a male teacher and female student. Socially and culturally, we must talk about the motivations and impact of child sexual abuse the same regardless of the gender, race or cultural background of the person committing the harm and the child harmed; but we do not, and this undermines victims’ experiences and damages effective risk management. In the James case, it is important to acknowledge that her victims were both boys and girls, which is a relative risk factor in child sexual abuse cases. For schools and educational establishments, it means that they need to be aware of the individualised nature of risk and the fluidity of offending behaviour.
One of the main talking points about this case was that to be a teacher, or to work with children and young people in a position of trust in England and Wales, you need a background check. Background checks rely on past convictions and information known and recorded in the system about a person. This highlights the challenge of using background checks to mitigate risk; they only work with known individuals. Therefore, schools and youth-serving organisations need to be working preventatively with staff, partners and students to highlight the warning signs of sexual abuse, how to report it and then how to manage it. The James case highlights that prevention strategies need to be better developed in schools, educational establishments, and youth-serving organisations, and in doing so they need to be consistent about anyone’s capacity to commit or be a victim of child sexual abuse.
