SHREWSBURY MAN MATTHEW EVANS SENTENCED FOR SEX OFFENCES IN GOBOWEN
| Red Rose Database
Shrewsbury Sexual Abuser
In March 2016, a man from Shrewsbury named Matthew Shane Evans, aged 24, was sentenced to three years in prison after admitting to a series of serious sexual offences. The crimes, which took place in Gobowen between 2012 and 2014, involved the exploitation of minors through social media platforms.
Evans, who resided in Bicton Heath, Shrewsbury, faced a total of 15 charges. These included inciting or causing children to engage in sexual activities, as well as the making and distribution of indecent images. The court heard that Evans had engaged in a disturbing pattern of behavior, tricking eight different children aged between 13 and 17 into sending him explicit photographs of themselves. He then distributed these images, exploiting their trust for his own gratification or possibly for others’ benefit.
During the sentencing hearing at Shrewsbury Crown Court, Judge James Tindal acknowledged that he had initially considered a harsher sentence of five years. However, he took into account Evans’s guilty plea and other mitigating circumstances, such as his mental health issues and his young age. Despite these factors, the judge emphasized the severity of the offences and the harm caused to the victims.
Judge Tindal explained to Evans why he was being sentenced to prison rather than a community order. He highlighted that Evans’s actions involved a calculated abuse of trust, with the defendant using social media to manipulate and blackmail the children involved. The judge described Evans as a 'troubled young man' and condemned his conduct as a cynical exploitation of vulnerable minors.
“Essentially, you tricked eight different children from 13-17 into sending you pictures of themselves and then you distributed them,” Judge Tindal stated. “This was a cynical abuse of their trust, either for your gratification, or for others, or both. The harm you caused was not only to the children you abused, but by holding over their heads that you would release them, that added salt to their wounds.”
The judge further expressed concern over Evans’s potential risk to children, citing the opinion of an experienced probation officer who indicated that Evans posed a high risk of harm despite his age. He described Evans as someone who was prepared to exploit and abuse children for personal gain and to blackmail them.
Judge Tindal also noted that Evans’s behavior was troubling because he appeared to give the impression of compliance, yet children remained at risk from him. He emphasized that, although mitigation led to a reduction of the sentence by two years, the offences were extremely serious. The court made it clear that such conduct warrants significant punishment.
During the proceedings, Evans experienced a health issue and collapsed in the dock, requiring treatment in the cells. The case was temporarily delayed as he was attended to. Once stabilized, Evans was led away to begin his prison sentence, which is expected to include a period of automatic release after serving up to half of the term, with the remainder on licence. Additionally, he will be subject to a sexual harm prevention order and barred from having unsupervised contact with anyone under 16 for at least six years.
Evans, who resided in Bicton Heath, Shrewsbury, faced a total of 15 charges. These included inciting or causing children to engage in sexual activities, as well as the making and distribution of indecent images. The court heard that Evans had engaged in a disturbing pattern of behavior, tricking eight different children aged between 13 and 17 into sending him explicit photographs of themselves. He then distributed these images, exploiting their trust for his own gratification or possibly for others’ benefit.
During the sentencing hearing at Shrewsbury Crown Court, Judge James Tindal acknowledged that he had initially considered a harsher sentence of five years. However, he took into account Evans’s guilty plea and other mitigating circumstances, such as his mental health issues and his young age. Despite these factors, the judge emphasized the severity of the offences and the harm caused to the victims.
Judge Tindal explained to Evans why he was being sentenced to prison rather than a community order. He highlighted that Evans’s actions involved a calculated abuse of trust, with the defendant using social media to manipulate and blackmail the children involved. The judge described Evans as a 'troubled young man' and condemned his conduct as a cynical exploitation of vulnerable minors.
“Essentially, you tricked eight different children from 13-17 into sending you pictures of themselves and then you distributed them,” Judge Tindal stated. “This was a cynical abuse of their trust, either for your gratification, or for others, or both. The harm you caused was not only to the children you abused, but by holding over their heads that you would release them, that added salt to their wounds.”
The judge further expressed concern over Evans’s potential risk to children, citing the opinion of an experienced probation officer who indicated that Evans posed a high risk of harm despite his age. He described Evans as someone who was prepared to exploit and abuse children for personal gain and to blackmail them.
Judge Tindal also noted that Evans’s behavior was troubling because he appeared to give the impression of compliance, yet children remained at risk from him. He emphasized that, although mitigation led to a reduction of the sentence by two years, the offences were extremely serious. The court made it clear that such conduct warrants significant punishment.
During the proceedings, Evans experienced a health issue and collapsed in the dock, requiring treatment in the cells. The case was temporarily delayed as he was attended to. Once stabilized, Evans was led away to begin his prison sentence, which is expected to include a period of automatic release after serving up to half of the term, with the remainder on licence. Additionally, he will be subject to a sexual harm prevention order and barred from having unsupervised contact with anyone under 16 for at least six years.