Glover-Stuart, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an application for leave to refer a sentence considered unduly lenient by His Majesty's Solicitor General. The Defendant, a 36-year-old male, was convicted at the Crown Court in Inner London on 26 February 2025 after a trial of four offences against two separate victims. These offences included two sexual assaults against the first victim and causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent against both victims, contrary to section 4 of the Sexual Offences Act 2004. The victims have life-long anonymity under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992.

The Defendant was sentenced on 16 April 2025 to an overall sentence of two years' imprisonment suspended for 24 months, with additional requirements including 26 days of a behavioural programme, 30 days of rehabilitation activity, and 200 hours of unpaid work. Evidence showed partial completion of these requirements and ongoing participation in a Listening Programme due to suicide risk concerns.

Factual background reveals that in September and October 2023, the Defendant advertised two photoshoots to separate men, falsely claiming they were for a well-known brand. The photoshoots took place at the Defendant's flat, involving men photographed in underwear, during which the Defendant engaged in non-consensual sexual contact. The first victim was 18 years old and the second victim was 28 years old. The Defendant had prior cautions and convictions, including fraud-related offences in 2008 and 2020.

The sentencing judge found the offending to be largely spontaneous and opportunistic, rejecting the claim that the photoshoots were used as a pretext for sexual offences. The judge also rejected the prosecution's submission of abuse of trust, categorising the offences under category 3B rather than 3A in the relevant sentencing guidelines.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge erred in categorising the offences of causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent as category 3B instead of category 3A due to alleged abuse of trust.
2. Whether irrelevant matters were improperly taken into account in the sentencing remarks.
3. The appropriate exercise of discretion in determining whether the suspended sentence was unduly lenient and whether immediate custody was warranted.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Solicitor General contended that the offences should have been categorised as 3A due to abuse of trust, as the Defendant held a significant level of responsibility towards the victims.
• The Defendant's position was that the judge was correct to categorise the offences as 3B, asserting the offending was spontaneous and opportunistic and denying abuse of trust.
• The Appellant argued that the sentence of two years suspended was unduly lenient and that an immediate custodial sentence of approximately three years was appropriate.
• Considerations of the Defendant’s autism spectrum disorder and progress since sentencing were submitted as mitigating factors relevant to the exercise of discretion.

Respondent's Arguments

• The judge’s findings of fact, including the absence of abuse of trust and the spontaneous nature of the offending, should not be disturbed.
• The mitigating factors such as the Defendant's neurodevelopmental disorder and personal circumstances justified the sentencing decisions made.
• The court should exercise caution in converting a suspended sentence to immediate custody given the Defendant’s mental health risks and progress made.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the sentencing judge’s categorisation of the offences under the offence-specific guidelines for causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent. The judge had placed the offences in category 3B, rejecting abuse of trust. The court analysed the factual matrix, including the Defendant’s false representation of the photoshoots, his control over the victims during the shoots, and the expectation of trust inherent in the situation.

Applying the principles from R v Forbes and the sentencing guidelines, the court found that the Defendant held a significant level of responsibility towards the victims, who were entitled to rely on him, thus constituting abuse of trust. The court acknowledged the judge’s findings of spontaneity but held that opportunistic exploitation of a position of trust does not negate abuse of trust.

The court also considered the Defendant’s autism spectrum disorder and mitigating factors, recognising that culpability might be reduced where an impairment is connected to offending behaviour. However, this did not justify the original sentencing starting point.

Balancing these factors, the court concluded that the judge’s starting point of two years was too low and that the offences should have been categorised as 3A with a starting point of four years. The court then exercised its discretion to impose an immediate custodial sentence of three years, adjusted for time already served and curfew credits, reflecting the severity of the offending and the need to properly reflect criminality.

Holding and Implications

The court GRANTED LEAVE to refer the sentence and ALLOWED THE REFERENCE to the extent of substituting the original sentence. The new sentence imposed is a total of three years' imprisonment, comprising two years on count two and a consecutive twelve months on count four, with appropriate credits for time spent on remand and under curfew.

The direct effect is the imposition of immediate custody where previously there was a suspended sentence. The court emphasised the importance of properly categorising offences involving abuse of trust and ensuring sentencing reflects the criminality disclosed. No new precedent was established beyond the application of existing guidelines and authorities.