Expanding “Abuse of Trust” in Sentencing: The Precedential Effect of
R v Glover-Stuart ([2025] EWCA Crim 1013)

1. Introduction

The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) in R v Glover-Stuart addressed a reference by the Solicitor-General on the ground that the original sentence—two years’ imprisonment suspended for 24 months—was “unduly lenient.” The respondent, Wayne Glover-Stuart, an amateur photographer aged 36, had been convicted of sexual assaults and of causing two male models to engage in sexual activity without consent during purported “Calvin Klein” underwear photoshoots. Central to the reference was whether the trial judge had mis-categorised the section 4 offences as category 3B (culpability B) under the Sentencing Council guideline—rather than 3A (culpability A)—because the judge declined to find an “abuse of trust.”

The Court of Appeal held that an abuse of trust was present notwithstanding the opportunistic nature of the offences and elevated culpability accordingly. It substituted an immediate custodial sentence of three years, thereby clarifying how “abuse of trust” should be interpreted in relatively informal, ad-hoc professional settings such as photoshoots. The decision provides new guidance on:

• The threshold for establishing “abuse of trust” under the Sexual Offences guideline;
• The relationship between opportunistic offending and breach of trust;
• The weight to be given to neuro-developmental disorders when recalibrating, but not eliminating, culpability; and
• The exercise of discretion where the Court of Appeal finds a sentence unduly lenient but the offender has already made progress under a suspended-sentence order.

2. Summary of the Judgment

1. Granting leave, the Court (Bean LJ, with McGowan J and Judge Bryan KC) concluded that the trial judge erred by failing to characterise the offender’s conduct as an abuse of trust. The photographer-model relationship, even in an informal domestic setting, imposed “a significant level of responsibility” on which the victims were entitled to rely (Guideline, Abuse of Trust dropdown).
2. The correct guideline category for the section 4 counts was therefore 3A (starting point: four years’ custody; range: two–six years).
3. Allowing for mitigation—most notably the respondent’s Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD), prior suspended-sentence compliance, and progress on rehabilitative requirements—the least sentence that could properly have been passed was three years’ immediate imprisonment, less credit for 48 days (remand and tagged curfew).
4. All ancillary orders (notification, restraining orders) were left undisturbed.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

• R v Forbes [2016] EWCA Crim 1388; [2017] 1 WLR 53 – recognised that “abuse of trust” requires a relationship conferring “significant responsibility” on the offender.
• Reference was also made to the Sentencing Council Guideline: Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent and the Sentencing Guidelines Council: Offenders with Developmental Disorders.

The Court treated Forbes as the leading authority on “abuse of trust” but extended its logic by holding that the principle covers ad hoc professional relationships (photographer-model) even where there is no formal contract or institutional structure. The guideline’s explicit mention of “late-night taxi driver and lone passenger” as an example of an ad hoc relationship was deployed analogously.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

(a) Guideline Construction
The Court parsed the Abuse of Trust dropdown:

In the photoshoot, the victims relied on the photographer’s directions: clothing choice, location, and propriety of touching garments to “adjust underwear.” By advertising falsely that the shoot was for Calvin Klein and insisting on a closed set, Glover-Stuart enhanced his authority and responsibility, thereby satisfying the test.

(b) Opportunism vs. Trust
Defence counsel argued that the offending was “spontaneous and opportunistic,” incompatible with a planned abuse of trust. The Court rejected this dichotomy, holding that opportunism does not negate trust; an offender may well exploit a position of trust spontaneously.

(c) Developmental Disorder Mitigation
Following the Developmental Disorder Guideline, the Court accepted that ASD could reduce culpability within the chosen guideline category but could not justify moving to a lower culpability band. The connection between ASD-induced misreading of social cues and the offending behaviour tempered, but did not eclipse, responsibility.

(d) Unduly Lenient Sentence Test
Applying established principles, the Court asked whether the original sentence was outside the range that a reasonable judge, properly applying the guideline, could impose. Because the judge’s failure to find abuse of trust reduced the starting point by 50%, the sentence fell below that range and was therefore unduly lenient.

(e) Discretion to Substitute a Harsher Sentence
Even after finding undue leniency, the Court retains discretion, particularly when:

• The offender has made constructive progress under a suspended sentence;
• There is evidence of mental ill-health or suicidal ideation; and
• Significant time has elapsed between sentence and appeal.

All factors were weighed but deemed outweighed by the public interest in proportionate punishment and deterrence, especially for sexual offending against multiple victims.

3.3 Potential Impact

1. Broader Interpretation of Abuse of Trust: Future cases involving informal service providers (photographers, personal trainers, ride-share drivers, social-media “influencers”, or gig-economy workers invited into private spaces) are now more likely to attract culpability A where sexual misconduct occurs.
2. Modeling & Creative Industries: Agencies and courts must recognise the inherent power imbalance in shoots, casting calls, and rehearsals. Consent protocols may be strengthened; risk assessments by organisers may become industry standard.
3. Autism Spectrum Disorder as Mitigation: The judgment reaffirms that neuro-developmental conditions mitigate within guideline brackets but rarely justify downgrading culpability levels. Expert reports must demonstrate a “sufficient causal connection” to have a more substantial impact.
4. Unduly Lenient Sentencing (ULS) References: The decision underscores that suspended sentences for penetration offences in category 3A are highly vulnerable to ULS referrals.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Abuse of Trust (Sentencing Guideline): A circumstance that aggravates culpability where the offender occupies a role—formal or informal—that demands responsibility towards the victim (teacher, employer, taxi driver, photographer) and exploits that role to offend.
• Category 3A vs. 3B: Category 3 (harm) covers offences involving penetration but no abusive images or extreme violence. Within that, 3A denotes higher culpability (abuse of trust, pre-planning, intimidation); 3B is lower culpability in the absence of those features.
• Unduly Lenient Sentence Reference: Under section 36 Criminal Justice Act 1988, the Solicitor-General may refer a sentence to the Court of Appeal if it is so lenient that no reasonable judge could have passed it.
• Suspended Sentence Order: A custodial sentence that is not activated unless the offender commits further offences or breaches requirements (rehabilitation, unpaid work). Breach or appellate substitution can convert it into immediate custody.
• Autistic Spectrum Disorder Mitigation: ASD can affect social understanding and impulse control; the guideline directs courts to consider whether ASD diminished culpability but not necessarily to reduce the harm classification.

5. Conclusion

R v Glover-Stuart makes three principal contributions to English sentencing jurisprudence:

1. It confirms that “abuse of trust” under the sexual offences guidelines extends beyond traditional hierarchical relationships to informal, situational power dynamics created by the offender.
2. It clarifies that opportunistic offending does not negate an abuse-of-trust finding.
3. It reiterates the correct methodology for applying developmental-disorder mitigation, emphasising calibration within, not displacement of, the guideline category.

Practitioners should therefore treat any scenario in which an offender orchestrates circumstances that cause a victim to rely on their direction—however casually organised—as potentially engaging the abuse of trust aggravator. Sentencers must give explicit reasons when rejecting such a finding, lest the Court of Appeal intervene on a ULS reference. The decision also signals a tightening stance on suspended sentences for penetration offences, reaffirming the primacy of proportionality and public confidence in the sentencing of sexual crimes.