R v Wayne Glover-Stuart

For the sexual-offence sentencing guideline, abuse of trust may arise in an ad hoc arrangement where the offender has assumed a significant level of responsibility towards the victim on which the victim is entitled to rely. The assessment requires close examination of the facts and clear justification.

Offending may be spontaneous and opportunistic yet still exploit a position of trust. Where a judge wrongly places such offending in the lower culpability category, and the resulting suspended sentence fails to reflect the criminality, an Attorney General’s reference may properly result in an immediate custodial sentence. Mitigation, including a disorder connected with the offending, remains material to the appropriate sentence.

The Solicitor General referred the respondent’s sentence under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 as unduly lenient. Following a trial in the Crown Court at Inner London, he had been convicted of two sexual assaults and two offences of causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent, contrary to section 4 of the Sexual Offences Act 2004.

The sentencing judge imposed an overall sentence of two years’ imprisonment, suspended for 24 months. The reference challenged the categorisation of the two section 4 offences as category 3B rather than category 3A, contending that the respondent had abused a position of trust created by false photoshoots arranged with the victims. The central issue was whether the circumstances gave him a significant responsibility towards the victims on which they were entitled to rely.

1. Reference allowed. The court granted leave and held that the overall suspended sentence was unduly lenient. It substituted an immediate sentence of three years’ imprisonment, subject to credit for remand and tagged-curfew time.

2. The offence-specific guideline requires close factual examination and clear justification before finding abuse of trust. The relevant relationship must give the offender a significant level of responsibility towards the victim on which the victim is entitled to rely. That approach was consistent with R v Forbes [2016] EWCA Crim 1388.

3. The false representation that the arrangements were Calvin Klein photoshoots, the direction that the victims wear underwear, the exclusion of a companion from the closed shoot, and the expected adjustment of underwear placed the victims under the respondent’s directions. These facts created the requisite responsibility and reliance. The judge therefore erred in treating the offences as category 3B rather than category 3A.

4. The trial judge’s finding that the conduct was substantially spontaneous and opportunistic was not open to challenge. It did not, however, prevent a finding of abuse of trust: an offender may opportunistically exploit a position of trust.

5. The court accepted that mitigation, especially the respondent’s autism spectrum disorder and its connection with his interpretation of events, justified a substantial reduction within the guideline range. It also took account of the work completed under the suspended sentence order and the respondent’s welfare. Nevertheless, two victims, separate harm, and the associated sexual assaults required two years’ imprisonment for the first victim and a consecutive year for the second, with the concurrent assault sentences left unchanged.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Granted leave and allowed the Solicitor General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, substituting an immediate sentence of three years’ imprisonment: [2025] EWCA Crim 1013.
• Crown Court at Inner London (HHJ Boyle) On 16 April 2025, imposed an overall sentence of two years’ imprisonment suspended for 24 months, with rehabilitation and unpaid-work requirements.