R v Jamil Talukder [2025] EWCA Crim 725

[2025] EWCA Crim 725Venue Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LLDate 22 May 2025
Before
LORD JUSTICE STUART-SMITHMRS JUSTICE YIPMRS JUSTICE TIPPLES
Between
REXCrownJAMIL TALUKDERDefendantREFERENCE BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL UNDERS.36 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1988
REXJAMIL TALUKDER
The provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply to these offences. Under those provisions, where a sexual offence has been committed against a person, no matter relating to that person shall during that person’s lifetime be included in any publication if it is likely to lead members of the public to identify that person as the victim of that offence.
Mr P Ratcliff appeared for Solicitor GeneralMr M Thomas appeared for Respondent Offender
Approved Judgment
[1]The provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply to these offences. Under those provisions, where a sexual offence has been committed against a person, no matter relating to that person shall during that person’s lifetime be included in any publication if it is likely to lead members of the public to identify that person as the victim of that offence. This prohibition applies unless waived or lifted in accordance with section 3 of the Act. For the avoidance of any doubt we do not waive or lift the prohibition.[2]His Majesty’s Solicitor General applies for leave to refer to this Court a sentence which she regards as unduly lenient. The sentence was imposed by HHJ Hatton sitting at the Crown Court at Sheffield on 27 February 2025. The sentence was for an aggregate term of 3 years’ imprisonment. The constituent elements of the sentence were: i) On count 1, which was an offence of sexual assault on a child under 13, contrary to section 7(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (the victim being someone who we shall call “V1”), on his plea of guilty he was sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment. ii) On count 2, which was an offence of causing a child to engage in sexual activity contrary to section 10(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, the victim being V1, on his plea of guilty, he was sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment concurrent. iii) On count 3, which was a further offence of sexual assault on a child under 13 (this time an offence against a victim who we shall call “V2”), on his plea of guilty, he was sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment concurrent. iv) On count 4, which was a further offence of causing a child to engage in sexual activity, the victim this time being V2, on his plea of guilty he was sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment concurrent. v) On count 5, which was an offence of making indecent photographs of a child, contrary to section 1(1)(a) of the Protection of Children Act 1978, the photographs being in category B, on his plea of guilty he was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment concurrent. vi) Finally, on count 6, which was another charge of making indecent photographs of a child, this time in category C, on his plea of guilty he was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment concurrent.

The Facts

[3]The offender is 23 years of age, having been born on 7 July 2001. V1 was 11 years of age at the time of the offending. V1 is severely disabled. When he was 2 he was diagnosed with severe autism and bowel problems. When he was 5 he was diagnosed with learning difficulties and ADHD. Between the age of 5 and 9 V1 received care funded by Social Services. Funding was then provided via the NHS and V1 began to receive more care, consisting of 37 hours during the week over the holiday periods and four to five nights per week. The care providers allocated three or four different carers during the week who would see V1 at home. On the nights when care was not provided V1 occasionally would go to a respite centre.[4]When V1 was 10 years old he had an operation, in which a tube was inserted into his stomach to assist with his bowel condition; and he began a regime of life-altering medication. V1 was able to express his emotion through his facial expressions and noises. He was all but non-verbal with only a small number of words that he was able to say. Because of his hyperactive behaviour his bedroom was covered with PVC padding so as to prevent him injuring himself. V1 needed 24-hour care.[5]The offender came to the United Kingdom in October 2022 to study for a degree in marketing; he was also employed as a carer. At the time of the offending he lived with his aunt who was the mother of V2. V2 was born in 2017 and was therefore 5 at the time of the offending against him.[6]In and around October 2023, when the offender was 22 years old, the offender began working as a carer for V1 at V1’s home. Initially he worked on daytime shifts between 10.00 am and 3.00 pm before providing care overnight between 7.30 pm to 7.30 am once or twice every two weeks.[7]V1’s mother noted that the offender was very affectionate with V1, stroking his hair, patting his back and placing his face close to V1’s face. The offender would follow V1 around the house even when that was not necessary.[8]In December 2023, V1’s mother noted a change in V1’s behaviour when the offender was on shift. V1 would demonstrate that he did not want to spend time with the offender and would refuse to go to his bedroom with him. This did not occur with other carers. V1 began pulling the gastronomy tube from his stomach to such an extent that he required surgery on multiple occasions to have the tube replaced. He also began pulling on his foreskin, which he had not done before, and which led to a diagnosis of balanitis.[9]V1’s mother was concerned that V1’s behaviour was linked to the offender. On two occasions when the offender was caring for V1 overnight his mother found that the offender’s rucksack was leaning against his door, in her opinion, to stop her from entering the room quickly. She reported this to the offender’s manager. On another occasion the offender offered to get V1 changed and V1 began crying and was very distressed.[10]In February and March 2024 the escalation in V1’s behaviour meant that he was afforded care seven nights a week. The offender began to work more overnight with V1.[11]On 14 April 2024, the offender was working overnight. V1 had behaved normally during the day with his other carers. When the offender arrived and sought to take V1 to his bedroom V1 resisted and shouted, “Go home” whilst crying. V1’s mother was very worried about this and believed that something was happening in the bedroom when she was not present. She purchased a camera and concealed it in V1’s bedroom the following day (15 April 2024). The offender was working that night, and V1’s mother watched the footage from the garden. She saw the offender looking through the bedroom blinds, where he saw V1’s mother in the garden before going out of the bedroom as if to see whether there was anyone there. V1’s mother had observed the offender doing this in the past. She sought to watch the footage live but the Internet connection failed. On the morning of 16 April 2024 she reviewed the footage. The footage showed the offender approach V1 in his bed, lean over and put his face close to V1’s face. The sound was consistent with him kissing V1’s mouth. The offender pulled back before doing the same thing again. He placed his hands under the covers and touched V1’s genital area for a few seconds before V1 moved the offender’s hand away. That formed the basis for count 1, sexual assault of a child under 13. Shortly after, the offender took V1’s left hand and brought it towards his groin area, (count 2, causing a child to engage in sexual behaviour). As the offender’s body was facing away from the camera, it was not possible to see more. V1’s movements showed his mother that he was in discomfort. The footage showed that later that night the offender sat next to V1’s bed with one hand holding his mobile telephone and the other down his trousers. There were multiple flashes from his telephone.[12]V1’s mother notified the police, the offender was arrested on the afternoon of 16 April 2024, and his iPhone was seized. The police were subsequently able to recover the footage that grounded count 1 but not the following footage.[13]The offender was interviewed and denied sexually assaulting V1.[14]The offender’s telephone was examined. There were two videos on the offender’s handset of the offender’s cousin, V2. The videos were filmed in V2’s bedroom when the offender, who was 22 years old, was living with him. V2, as we have said, was 5 at the time. The first video, which formed the basis for count 5 (making indecent photographs of a child in category B) was 38 seconds long, and appeared to have been created on 13 July 2023. It showed V2 asleep on his bed. The offender pulled down V2’s shorts exposing his penis. The offender took hold of V2’s penis and stroked it for a few seconds before putting it back into V2’s shorts. The offender then moved V2 to his side and pulled V2’s shorts down. The offender proceeded to touch V2’s bare bottom (count 3, sexual assault of a child under 13). He then pulled the shorts back up and patted V2 on the bottom before stopping the recording. The second video (count 6, making indecent photographs of a child in category C) was 1 minute and 19 seconds long and appeared to have been created on 25 July 2023. It showed V2 sitting on a toilet singing. The offender spoke to V2, and V2 then pulled his T-shirt up displaying his penis. The offender zoomed in on V2’s penis. V2 pulled down his T-shirt to cover his penis. V2 asked about seeing the telephone and then pulled up his shirt again displaying his penis. The offender again zoomed in on the penis. The offender asked V2 to raise his hand. V2 refused and pulled his T-shirt further down. Shortly after V2 pulled his T-shirt up again displaying his penis before pulling his T-shirt back down again. V2 took hold of his shorts and the video ended (count 4, causing a child to engage in sexual behaviour). The offender was arrested again on 24 November 2024. He was interviewed and remained silent throughout. The Proceedings[15]The offender was initially charged with five offences. It is plain a degree of confusion set in at that stage because each of the two charges of sexual assault were said to have involved sexual touching of a boy aged 11. This was correct in relation to V1 but incorrect in relation V2 who, as we have said, was 5 at the time of the offending. The single offence of causing a child under 13 to engage in sexual behaviour was said to have involved a boy of 11. Furthermore, the charge was specified to be brought under section 10 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. It is common ground that since V2 was 5 years old, the facts of the offender’s conduct would have satisfied the requirements of an offence contrary to section 8, inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity.[16]When the indictment was drawn the confusion about V2’s age when sexually assaulted was resolved. The particulars of count 3 described him as being aged 5 to 6. However confusion persisted in relation to count 4 because the offence was stated to be contrary to section 10(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and consistently with that, the particulars of the offence referred to V2 being a child under the age of 16. A second charge was added, namely count 3 which alleged the offence of causing a child to engage in sexual activity, this time in relation to V1. Once again the charge was brought under section 10(1) of the Sexual Offences Act and the particulars referred to V1 being under the age of 16.[17]In due course, the offender pleaded guilty to the offences charged under the indictment. His pleas were entered at the PTPH but he had given sufficient prior notice of his intention to plead to enable the sentencing judge to afford him one-third credit. That aspect is not challenged on this Reference. Victim Personal Statements[18]The victims’ mothers both provided statements which we have read in full. In her initial statement of 16 April 2024 and her subsequent statement of 23 November 2024, V1’s mother noted that following her report to the police V1 remained very distressed. If there were any male members of care staff at the house, he would punch them in their private areas. He had begun to lift his mattress from the base and into the side of the bed to stop anyone getting close to him. His aggressive behaviour had deteriorated. He had a lack of trust in his carers and refused to be bathed or washed in his private parts. In September 2024, V1 started at a new school but they reported that he had begun punching male teachers and staff in their private areas.[19]In a further victim statement dated 18 January 2025, V1’s mother spoke of how she had tried for a long time to manage V1’s behaviour and how “[i]t was a big decision and brave decision to have help from carers knowing that they would spend so much time with [V1] who was so vulnerable and whose day-to-day needs were so high.” She believed that his behaviour materially worsened following the offender’s involvement with him to such an extent that she had considered putting V1 in permanent care. The offender’s actions could have meant V1 was “forced to live away from the family who love him”. He now slept in a tent in his bedroom in order to feel safe. V1’s mother noted how vulnerable he is:
“He cannot tell me or anyone else exactly what is wrong. He is classed as non-verbal. He cannot explain what hurts. I feel like he has a secret existence that only he knows about. [The offender] preyed on his secret existence. He spent enough time with [V1] to know that [V1] couldn’t communicate with me.”
[20]The physical damage to V1 as a consequence of his significant change in behaviour had been very significant. He would rip his stomach “peg” out and had to have it refitted often through surgery multiple times. This caused long-term damage and meant that he was unable to take medication through his peg. The fact that she would never know exactly what happened to V1 made his mother feel helpless. She felt “immeasurable guilt” for putting V1 in the position where the offender was able to abuse him. She suffered from anxiety, had to take sleeping tablets and was unable to trust people in her home.[21]In relation to V2, the offender’s aunt (who was V2’s mother) provided a victim personal statement. In her view, V2 “is not aware of the abuse he’s suffered”. She stated that she “supported the courts displaying some sympathy and leniency towards [the offender] as he has the opportunity to be rehabilitated, learn and make better things of his life.” The Pre-sentence Report[22]The judge had the benefit of a pre-sentence report. Unsurprisingly, it identified the extreme nature of the breach of trust involved in the offending against extremely vulnerable victims. Use of a maturity screening tool identified that a lack of maturity was present in the offender’s behaviour. He said that he had been subjected to similar behaviour by an uncle when he was younger. He had come to the United Kingdom with a view to bettering himself by further education made possible by considerable sacrifices made by members of his family. He was assessed as posing a low general risk of reoffending but as presenting a medium risk of further sexual offending. Additional Materials[23]The offender presented certificates from his home country that testified to him being an exemplary and high achieving student. He wrote a letter to the judge in which he described his ambition to be the first person in his family to graduate from tertiary education. He expressed shame and asked for the opportunity to achieve his ambition both for himself and for his family. The letter showed slim appreciation of the damage he had done or the gravity of his culpability, though he said he was extremely sorry for any harm caused to his victims. The Sentencing Hearing[24]When the offender came to be sentenced the respective positions of the prosecution and the defence in relation to the guidelines were:• Counts 1 and 3. It was agreed that the guideline for sexual assault of a child under 13 was the appropriate guideline. It was also agreed that each of the offences fell within category 2A albeit for different reasons. On that basis the starting point under the guideline would be 4 years with a category range of 3 to 7 years.• Counts 2 and 4. The prosecution initially submitted that the appropriate guideline was that for causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity. The defence contended that the appropriate guideline was that for causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity since that was the offence to which he had pleaded and fell to be sentenced. In a responsive note, the prosecution agreed that that was the applicable guideline. Under that guideline the defence submitted that count 2 fell within category 3A, giving a starting point of 26 weeks’ imprisonment and a category range of a high-level community order to 3 years’ imprisonment. It was submitted that count 4 fell within category 2A, giving a starting point of 3 years with a category range of 2 to 6 years. The prosecution agreed with that categorisation at that stage albeit for different reasons. That’s the categorisation for count 4.• It was not in dispute that the appropriate starting points and category ranges for the making indecent photographs were(a) category B - starting point 2 years, category range 1 to 4 years(b) category C - starting point 18 months, category range 1 to 3 years. The Sentencing Remarks[25]The judge held that the appropriate guideline for counts 2 and 4 was a guideline for an offence under section 10 not section 8 because his “hands were tied by what the prosecution elected to do” by proceeding on what the judge described as “the less serious charge”. He held that count 2 was category 2A and count 4 was category 3A. He then identified that the starting point for counts 5 and 6 were 2 years and 18 months respectively. The judge then explained the sentences that he was to pass as follows:
“I have to deal with you for this offending in total. So, I have in mind the totality sentencing guideline. I need to look at your offending in the whole and fix a sentence that is appropriate for that total offending. Bearing in mind those sentencing guidelines, bearing in mind totality, bearing in mind that there were two child victims over a period of time, I am satisfied that the appropriate starting point, after a trial, for the totality of offending would be one of five years’ imprisonment. I reduce that by six months to reflect your good character and your age. That reduces to 54 months. As I have indicated, you are entitled to one-third discount. You have saved court time, you have saved public money and you have saved a great deal of anxiety on the part of those touched by your offending, your victims. The sentence in respect of counts 1 and 3 is, after that reduction, three years’ imprisonment on each concurrently. On counts 2 and 4 there will be 2 years’ imprisonment on each concurrently. On counts 5 and 6, 12 months’ imprisonment on each concurrently. That is a total sentence of three years’ imprisonment.”

The Solicitor-General’s Preliminary Submission

[26]The Solicitor General submits as a preliminary point that counts 2 and 4 should be assessed by reference to the guideline that is stated to apply to offences under section 8 because it was known to the offender, and was not in dispute, that V1 and V2 were both children under the age of 13. Accordingly, the submission is that counts 2 and 4 should have been charged as offences contrary to section 8 and that the offender should be sentenced for those counts as if he had pleaded guilty to the offences contrary to section 8 rather than the offence’s contrary to section 10 with which he was charged and to which he in fact pleaded guilty.[27]We can deal with this submission shortly. In its boldest form we cannot accept it. Counts 2 and 4 alleged offences contrary to section 10. Those were the offences to which the offender pleaded guilty and for which he fell to be sentenced. The appropriate guideline was therefore the guideline for the offences to which he had pleaded, namely offences contrary to section 10. That does not mean that the youth of the victims should not feature in the court’s assessment of the seriousness of the offences to which the offender had pleaded guilty. It has consistently been said that the guidelines are not straitjackets that have to be applied mechanistically. The court is not limited to a box-ticking exercise restricted to matters listed in the guidelines in order to reach a mathematically accurate outcome. Even if it were, there is always scope for adjustments upwards or downwards to be made where relevant factors are particularly egregious or of extreme potency. What matters is that the court should take all relevant matters into account in order to reach a sentence that is just and proportionate. The obligation to give reasons means that the court should explain why it reaches a particular sentence. That obligation is particularly important where the court wishes to go beyond the normal contours of the guideline, for example, where the seriousness of one or more offences requires the court to go outside the category range that might at first seem to be appropriate.[28]By way of illustrative example, in the present case the ages of V1 and V2 are clearly relevant features that fall to be taken into account when deciding on the appropriate sentence for counts 2 and 4, whether viewed individually or cumulatively when considering totality in the context of the offender’s offending as a whole. The fact that they had been charged as offences contrary to section 10 does not preclude the court from considering all relevant features of the offending. What we would accept is that measured reference to the section 8 guideline gives some indication of the weight that may be attributed to the considerable (and in V2’s case extreme) youth of the victims. What is important is that the court should make clear what it is doing and why. We therefore address the submissions of the parties in this light.

The Solicitor General’s Submissions

[29]On count 1 the Solicitor General submits that the offence fell within category 2A because V1 was particularly vulnerable due to the personal circumstances and the offender touched V1’s naked genitals and there was abuse of trust. The starting point was therefore 4 years with a category range of 3 to 7 years. It is submitted that there should be a significant uplift from the starting point to reflect the extreme nature of both V1’s vulnerability and the offender’s breach of trust. The Solicitor General identifies as aggravating features in relation to counts 1 and 2, first, V1 was particularly vulnerable due to his personal circumstances. Second, there was a significant abuse of trust. The offender was entrusted with caring for V1 overnight in his home. Third, there was arguably a significant degree of planning. Fourth, there was specific targeting of a particularly vulnerable child. Fifth, the location of the offence, in V1’s bedroom, where he was entitled to be safe.[30]Mitigating features are the offender’s previous good character, remorse and his age and relative lack of maturity. There was then to be a one-third reduction for his guilty plea. It was appropriate for the sentences on counts 1 and 2 to be concurrent. If they were, it was necessary for the sentence on the lead offence to be “weighted” to reflect the additional criminality and harm of the other. On that basis the Solicitor General submitted that the sentence on count 1 should have been significantly in excess of the 3 years that the judge imposed.[31]On count 2, the offence would fall at least initially in category 3A as submitted to the trial judge. Category 3 because it was “other sexual behaviour” and category A because of the degree of planning, abuse of trust and specific targeting of a particularly vulnerable child. The starting point was therefore 26 weeks’ custody with a category range going up to 3 years’ custody.[32]The Solicitor General submits that both the abuse of trust and the vulnerability of V1 were extreme and required a significant uplift from the starting point arguably into a more serious category moving to a more serious category. Moving to category 2A would give a starting point of 3 years and a category range from 2 years to 6. The same aggravating and mitigating features applied as would the reduction of one-third for the plea of guilty.[33]Turning to the offences against V2. The Solicitor General submits that the offence under count 3 fell within category 2A. Category 2 because there was touching of naked genitalia, and culpability A because sexual images of the victim were recorded. On that basis the starting point was 4 years’ custody and the category range was 3 to 7 years. There should be an upward adjustment to reflect the fact that V2 was only 5 at the time.[34]The Solicitor General then submits that there are aggravating features in relation to counts 3 and 4, as follows. First, the touching of V2’s naked genitalia. Second, significant disparity in age. Third, V2 was very young in the context of the offence. Fourth, there was an element of abuse of trust. The offender was V2’s much older cousin, trusted to be with him in V2’s family home, and fifth, the offender took sexual images of V2. The same mitigation is available to the offender as before.[35]It is submitted that Count 4 should be treated as falling with category 2A. Category 2 because of the touching of naked genitalia, category A because of the recording of sexual images. That would give a starting point of 3 years and a category range of 2 to 6 years. No separate submissions are made in relation to counts 5 and 6, save that it is accepted that they are taken into account by the categorisation to which we have referred and do not call for further weighting.[36]On totality, the Solicitor General submits that the sentences on counts 1 and 2 could have been ordered to be consecutive to the sentences on counts 3 to 6, subject to adjustment for totality. If and to the extent that concurrent sentences were passed they have to be appropriately weighted to reflect their aggregate seriousness. If that were done, an aggregate sentence of 3 years, being based on a notional sentence of 5 years reduced to 4½ years for the offender’s good character and age before reduction for guilty pleas, can be seen to be unduly lenient.

The Offender’s Submissions

[37]We preface this by saying that on behalf of the offender Mr Thomas has said absolutely everything that could possibly and properly be said. The offender submits that the judge was right to accept the categorisation agreed by the parties before him, namely that counts 1 to 4 were all category 2A offences under the relevant guidelines for offences contrary to sections 7 and 10 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Mr Thomas submits that the judge accepted and reflected V1’s extreme vulnerability and the abuse of trust in issue. Similarly, he submits that the judge identified and accepted all relevant features relating to counts 3 and 4. Viewed overall, he submits that the offending could properly be placed to the bottom of category ranges and he does not accept that the sentence ultimately imposed was unduly lenient. Some of the matters relied upon by the Solicitor General as aggravating features can be seen to be duplicating the reasons for the categorisation for which the Solicitor General contends.

Discussion and Resolution

[38]Although the judge identified the categories that he adopted on counts 1 to 4 as he went through, he did not explain how he got from assessment of the individual categorisations to his expressed view that “the appropriate starting point, after a trial, for the totality of offending would be one of five years’ imprisonment”. While respecting the judge’s experience, the absence of any explanation means that we have no alternative but to construct what we consider to be a principled basis for an appropriate sentence both for individual counts and the offending in aggregate. In doing so, we have close regard to the relevant guidelines but do not purport to conduct a strict mathematical calculation or anything approaching it.[39]We start with the counts relating to V1 (counts 1 and 2). We agree that viewed in isolation: i) Count 1 was a category 2A offence contrary to section 7 with a starting point of 4 years and a category range of 3 to 7 years. We accept that V1’s extreme vulnerability and the extreme nature of the offender’s breach of trust imposes significant upward pressure and that pressure is increased by the significant degree of planning and the location of the offending. Before taking into account the offender’s mitigation, a sentence of 6 years was the absolute minimum adjusted starting point that would have been appropriate for count 1 on a standalone basis, that is of course before reduction for plea. After making full allowance for the offender’s limited mitigation, a sentence in the region of 5½ years would have been the absolute minimum appropriate sentence before making allowance for guilty pleas. ii) Count 2 was also a category 2A offence for the reasons we have outlined. On a standalone basis therefore, the starting point was 3 years and the category range from 2 years to 6. The same aggravating and mitigating features apply. In addition, the fact that V1 was 11 is a material factor that is relevant when sentencing under section 10. In our judgment, the most generous assessment that could reasonably have been made on a standalone basis is that the aggravating features outweighed the mitigating, such that the minimum sentence that properly could have been passed would have been one of 4 years before making allowance for guilty pleas. iii) The offending under counts 1 and 2 can be seen to be closely connected in time and is appropriately to be marked by concurrent sentences. However, if that is to be done and taking count 1 as the lead of the two offences, a significant uplift needs to be made to the notional sentence for count 1 to reflect the significant additional offending charged under count 2.[40]In our judgment, leaving on one side the offences against V2 for the moment, the least aggregate sentence that could reasonably be justified for counts 1 and 2, after adjustments for aggravating and mitigating features but before reducing for plea would have been in the region of 8 years. On this basis the notional sentence on count 1 should be weighted to be 8 years before reducing for plea.[41]We turn to the offences committed against V2. It should immediately be noted that at least at present V2 is apparently unaware of the significance of the offender’s offending and it can be reasonably be said that the element of abuse of trust is somewhat less in relation to V2, the offender’s younger cousin, than it is in relation to V1, who the offender was under a professional obligation to look after. These differences are, however, relatively marginal. We do not know what the future impact on V2 may be, if any, and the abuse of the trust engendered by living under the same roof should not be underestimated. Counts 3 and 4 are category 2A offences. The starting points and category ranges are therefore the same as for counts 1 and 2. Counts 3 and 4 are not closely connected in time, count 3 having occurred on 13 July and count 4 on 25 July 2023. They are, however, offences against the same victim, as are counts 5 and 6, with count 5 being contemporaneous with count 3 and count 6 being contemporaneous with count 4. That being so it is possible, in our judgment, for them properly to be subject to concurrent sentences. If that is done however, adjustment needs to be made to reflect the weighting of the lead offence as a consequence of the others. On a standalone basis, the starting point for count 3 of 4 years requires upward adjustment to reflect V2’s youth. In our judgment, the most generous assessment that could reasonably be made is that the aggravating and mitigating features cancel themselves out, leading to a notional sentence before reduction for guilty pleas of 5 years. Similarly, in relation to count 4, we take into account that V2 was only 5 years old. We consider that the most generous assessment on a standalone basis would have been that the aggravating and mitigating features broadly cancel themselves out, leading to a notional sentence before reduction for pleas of 4 years. Adopting the same approach as before and leaving the offences against V1 to one side for a moment, the least aggregate sentence that could reasonably have been passed on counts 3 to 6, after taking into account aggravating and mitigating features but before reduction for guilty pleas, would have been in the region of 7 years. This would have to be reflected in the weighting of the lead case. It is rightly conceded that, since counts 5 and 6 determine that the offences are categorised as A for harm, no further weighting should be carried out by reference to counts 5 and 6.[42]Pausing there, we recognise that our assessment so far leads to an aggregate notional sentence for the offending against V2 that is not much less than the aggregate notional sentence for the offending against V1. That may seem counter intuitive at first blush given the extreme vulnerability of V1, the abuse of trust involved and the well-evidenced adverse impact on V1. However, on further examination, we consider it to be reasonable because of V2’s extreme youth.[43]The case for making the sentences for the offences against V1 concurrent to those for the offences against V2 is much weaker. In our judgment, the differences in victims and time make it more appropriate to make the sentences for the offences against V1 consecutive to the sentences for the offences against V2, subject always to making an appropriate reduction for totality. We therefore reflect the different courses of offending by a mixture of concurrent and consecutive sentences. Simply adding the V1 aggregate that we have reached (8 years) to the V2 aggregate (7 years) totals 15 years. There is little reason to make a substantial further reduction on grounds of totality. The most that can be said is that from the prospective of the offender, all of his offending may be viewed as a course of criminal conduct, albeit against different victims. Standing back and making an overall assessment of proportionality and totality, the most generous reduction that we consider could properly be made would be one that reduced the aggregate sentence to one of 12 years. This exercise, while neither mathematically rigorous nor determinative, confirms us in our view that the sentence passed by the judge was too lenient by a significant margin. Our indicative figure of 12 years, before reduction for plea, is to be compared with the judge’s view that 4½ years was appropriate to mark the totality of the offending. In our judgment, the main cause of the difference between us is that the judge failed to reflect the fact of the offending being against two victims, failed to give sufficient attention to the youth and vulnerability of V1 and V2, and failed to weight any of the sentences to reflect the additional criminality involved in the other sentences that he was making concurrent.[44]For these reasons, we conclude that the sentence imposed by the judge was not merely lenient but unduly lenient. In our judgment and taking into account all of the features to which we have referred above, an appropriate aggregate notional sentence after a trial would have been in the region of 12 years before reduction by one-third for the offender’s pleas of guilty. For these reasons, we consider that the most appropriate and straightforward way of remedying the undue leniency of the sentence imposed by the judge is to quash the sentences on counts 1 to 4 and to substitute sentences as follows: i) On count 1, the sentence will be one of 4 years’ imprisonment. ii) On count 2, the sentence will be one of 4 years’ imprisonment concurrent. iii) On count 3, the sentence will be one of 4 years consecutive. iv) On count 4, the sentence will be 4 years concurrent. The sentences on count 5 are not affected and, if we have expressed our intention correctly, the effect of that is that the aggregate sentence is now 8 years.