R v Christopher Oates

The provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply to the offences that are the subject of these appeals or this Reference. Under those provisions, where an allegation has been made that 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.

His Majesty's Solicitor General applies for leave to refer a sentence which she regards as unduly lenient. The sentence was imposed by HHJ Nicholls, sitting at the Crown Court at Manchester Crown Square on 26 June 2025, and was a total custodial term of 13 years and 1 month. Having pleaded guilty on various occasions the offender fell to be sentenced for offences that were contained in two indictments, of which the second had been split in two. There were therefore three indictments in all.

In briefest outline, the first indictment concerned exploiting two very vulnerable young girls to work as prostitutes with the offender acting as their pimp. We shall refer to the victims as "A" and "B". The second indictment, known as "Indictment A", concerned the taking and making of indecent photographs of children. The third, known as "Indictment B", concerned the production and possession of Class B drugs and the possession of identity documents with improper intention.

In a little more detail, the aggregate sentence was constructed as follows. Dealing first with the first indictment. On count 4, which was an offence of causing or inciting sexual exploitation of a child, on his plea of guilty the offender was sentenced to 9 years and 4 months' imprisonment. On count 5, which was an offence of possession of a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence, on his plea of guilty he was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment concurrent. On count 7, which was an offence of causing or inciting prostitution for gain, on his plea of guilty he was sentenced to 2 years and 6 months' imprisonment concurrent.

Under Indictment A, on count 1, which was an offence of making indecent photographs of children, on his plea of guilty he was sentenced to 2 years and 3 months' imprisonment consecutive. On count 2, which was another charge of making indecent photographs of children, on his plea of guilty he was sentenced to 6 months' imprisonment concurrent. On count 3, which was an offence of taking indecent photographs of children, on his plea of guilty he was sentenced to 6 months' imprisonment concurrent. On count 4, which was an offence of attempting to engage in sexual communications with a child, on his plea of guilty he was sentenced to 6 months' imprisonment concurrent.

Under Indictment B, on count 1, which was an offence of producing a controlled drug of Class B, on his plea of guilty he was sentenced to 6 months' imprisonment concurrent. On count 2, which was an offence of possessing a controlled drug of Class B with intent to supply, on his plea of guilty he was sentenced to 6 months' imprisonment concurrent. On count 3, possession of an identity document with improper intention, on his plea of guilty he was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment consecutive. On count 4, which was an offence of possession of an identity document with improper intention, on his plea of guilty, he was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment concurrent. The total sentence therefore was 13 years and 1 months' imprisonment. That sentence had to take into account an offence an offence of sexual activity with a child, contrary to section 9 of the Sexual Offences Act 2008, which the offender asked to be taken into account. He admitted that offence and it was dealt with as falling under the first indictment.

The Solicitor General challenges the aggregate sentence imposed under the first indictment. She does not challenge the sentences passed under Indictments A and B as such, although those sentences are relevant as contributing to the overall sentence imposed on the offender. We shall therefore concentrate primarily on the first indictment.

In summary, between May 2004 and February 2005, the offender exploited A, who was then a 14-year-old girl. He prostituted her for his own financial gain. When she indicated that she no longer wished to carry on, he pulled out an imitation firearm and threatened her. At the same time, he caused B to become a prostitute, again for his financial gain.

A was 14 years old when she met the 17-year-old B in a pub. It was August 2004. A had already been sexually active, smoking, drinking and dabbling in illicit drugs from the age of 13. She had been having problems at home. The relationship with her mother and father had deteriorated. B was going through similar issues at home. They were both clearly vulnerable.

A and B started to go into Manchester drinking together. At one such evening A met the offender in a bar on Oldham Street in Manchester. A recalled that the offender had a long fingernail that he used to scoop or "key" cocaine with. She said he was a drug dealer. He had money and he was "flash" with it. He had nice cars but did not drive as he always had a driver. A described the offender as being "super charming in the beginning". He would frequently tell her that she was beautiful. He would reassure her that she did not need anyone else. He said that he would protect her and keep her safe. As a result, she felt secure with him. A felt that she needed the kind of attention that he gave her. They quickly got into what A believed to be a relationship. She trusted that she was his girlfriend. She referred to the offender as her boyfriend. They began to spend more and more time together. They went to parties together. A would be driven around by his driver as he would go about dealing drugs. When she spoke to the police, A recalled that she would be jealous if he spoke to other girls at the bars they went to. The offender would reassure her by telling her: "Stop being silly. I love you". At the time she met the offender A was effectively homeless. Her relationship with her parents had broken down to such an extent that she was living an itinerant sofa surfing lifestyle. She was eventually moved to Coppice Hollow Care Home in Buxton, a short train ride from Manchester Piccadilly. From there she would get the train into Manchester to be with B and with the offender.

A care home record from 30 October 2004 states that A was overheard by staff at the care home on the phone to her boyfriend (the offender) saying that she was going to get on the train and come and see him. Another record from the care home dated 2 November 2004 stated that A was angrily asking which member of staff had spoken to her boyfriend relating to child protection issues. She was informed that it was the manager who had spoken to him. After Coppice Hollow A spent some time at St Catherine's Secure Unit where on 3 December 2004, staff noted that she was using the payphone to talk to the offender.

Those who had care of A were therefore aware of the offender. The offender was clearly aware that she was a child in care. A has described the offender ringing the Secure Unit. She said that he threatened to burn the Secure Unit down and to drive a car through the wall at one point. A would tell the police that the offender was reluctant to have sex with her. She believed that this was because he knew that she was underage. Latterly she believed that she was more important to him as someone who could be sold. She did however recall performing oral sex on him near the red-light district. That formed the basis of the offence which was to be taken into consideration. She said that he would give her money to buy gifts for herself, a new dress or pair of trainers. He would buy her drinks at the bar when they went out together and give her drugs, cocaine, Ecstasy and cannabis. All of these things were an inducement to A to persuade her to become a prostitute. A said that the offender quickly coerced her into working as a sex worker in the red-light district. He told her, "You know you're so beautiful you'd make a killing". He said, "I'll watch you. It's only sex." The offender said that he would look after her, that he would stay nearby and keep an eye on her. He said that he would take down the number plates of any cars that she got into so that she would be safe.

A said that she would hand over any money she earned to the offender. He would give her some money back that she could spend on herself. A recalled an occasion when she and B were made to have sex with an older Asian male in a threesome for money. During this incident a knife was seen down the side of the bed on the floor.

A started to doubt her relationship with the offender when she was approached by other sex workers who told her that she was too young to be working on the streets. She was told by other working girls that she was "tiny" or "a kid". A told them that she was safe because her boyfriend was keeping watch. A recalled being shocked when they replied that he was not her boyfriend, he was her pimp. They told her that other girls working on the streets were also working for him.

In February 2005, A was walking through Manchester Piccadilly towards the red-light district with the offender. She started crying. She told him she did not want to do the sex work anymore and that she wanted to go home. The offender dragged her down an alleyway, punched her to the head, slapped her and pulled a gun out of his coat pocket and put it to her head. He threatened her. He said: "You do as I say, you're mine now". He told her to go to her spot.

The prosecution did not challenge the offender's assertion that this was an imitation firearm. However, A said in her ABE interview that she believed it to be real (count 5). This was not the first time that the offender had been violent towards A but it was by far the scariest incident. A had seen a gun in his glove compartment before. She knew that he was violent, he had been violent towards her before. He had also threatened her family previously as well as assaulting her but this time was different. She tried to pacify him by saying that she just needed to go home to the care home to get ready. When she got back to the care home where she was staying an ambulance was called because she had an injury. However, she did not receive any treatment. She did however ring her mother and told her what had happened. Her mother informed a member of staff who worked at the care home. A also spoke about it to staff. During her relationship with the offender, A was repeatedly threatened that she must not tell anybody about what was going on. He would threaten to harm her parents and younger brother and set fire to their family home.

Following the incident with the gun, A was placed into secure accommodation for her own protection away from the offender.

The police investigation started when A sent a Facebook message in response to request for information by officers working for "Operation Green Jacket" which was a historic child sexual exploitation investigation run by Greater Manchester Police. She sent the message on 3 November 2022. By that time the offender had left the jurisdiction and was living abroad. As we have said, A was aged 14 during the period with which we have just been concerned.

We turn now to the history in relation to B. A's message and A's account led the police to B. It became apparent during police inquiries that she too was a victim. She provided an evidential account corroborating significant parts of A's evidence and confirmed that she had also been coerced into working as a prostitute in the red-light district.

B recalls being introduced by A to the offender who she recalls used the nickname "Nails". The reason for the nickname was that he had a long little fingernail which she remembers he used to "key" or scoop cocaine with, which he either took himself or gave to B and A. B remembered one night more vividly than the others, a night the offender organised. B and A were told to attend an address together in order to have sex with an older male. They did so in a room with a tripod and a camera in. B said that the offender would go into the red-light district with them but stay further down the road and watch on to make sure both A and B were "safe". He would supply them with cocaine and alcohol to help them relax before their "shifts".

B recalled that she would go to the red-light district at least once a week with A. They would get into cars with men and carry out sex acts for money. The offender tried to push harder drugs (crack cocaine and heroin) on to both girls. B refused. She told A to do the same.

B was born in May 1987. She was aged 17 throughout the indictment period. It was conceded that the offender might not have known that she was a child when he caused her to engage in prostitution. It would nonetheless have been clear to him that she was young and vulnerable. That formed the basis for count 7 with the first indictment.

Having spent much of the intervening period abroad the offender was arrested and interviewed on 4 November 2023. In relation to these matters he denied ever having met A and said that she must have had his number because he was a cannabis dealer. He denied ever being a pimp. He said that he had "enemies" who had asked A to make false allegations against him. He refused to be interviewed on a subsequent occasion about the allegations made by B.

We turn now to the Indictments A and B. First of all, Indictment A. On 23 November 2012, a warrant was executed at the offender's home address. He was living there with his parents. The offender was not present. His parents were. Officers searched the address and found several items within the property which they seized. Among the items seized were cash, a small amount of cannabis and a Nokia mobile phone, found in the offender's bedroom, which was sent for examination.

On 26 November 2012, three days after the warrant was executed at his address, the offender flew from London Heathrow to Bangkok. The mobile phone was downloaded. It contained 130 category C indecent images of children. There were also searches for "Illegal sick kidi porn hardcore", "Infant sex sites" and "Free Lolita incest kidi porn". That formed the basis of count 1 on indictment A.

In 2021 the offender became a person of interest to police officers working in Operation Camerly (part of Operation Green Jacket). This was following the disclosure made by A. It was soon discovered that the offender had spent much of the intervening period abroad travelling under the false name of "Andrew Cassin" and using false travel documents.

Information came to light in 2023 that the offender was back in the United Kingdom and living in the Stockport area. On 3 November 2023, the police attended Tannock Road in Hazel Grove, the new home address of the offender's parents, and arrested the offender. A search of that address uncovered a cannabis grow in the upstairs front room. The set up involved three tents each with horticultural lighting and ventilation, with an air circulation fan and a propagator. The ventilation system went up into the loft. In one tent there nine fully mature plants, in another there were ten. In a third tent there were 14 plants, giving a total of 33 plants. That formed the basis of Indictment B (counts 1 and 2). The potential cannabis yield was said to have a value of between £4,800 and £6,830. A search of the address identified a driving licence and a bank card in the name of Andrew Cassin. The photo on the driving licence is of the offender (Indictment B, counts 3 and 4).

In the bedroom alongside the tents was a makeshift bed next to which was the offender's Lenovo tablet which was plugged in on charge. Analysis of the tablet further demonstrated the offender's use of the alias "Andrew Cassin". Also recovered was evidence of purchases linked to the cannabis production including seeds and special offers on equipment. The Lenovo had on it eight category C indecent images of children. That formed the basis of indictment A, count 2. Officers also found 13 category B indecent images of a child which the offender had himself taken during a sexualised FaceTime session on 13 August 2023. The child "JL" was estimated to have been between 12 and 14 years of age. The screenshots show split screen images which the offender saved depicting his original live remote interaction with the naked child (Indictment A, count 3).

Facebook messages showed that the offender used a profile called "Reece Bailey" on Facebook Messenger. Within the chats the offender asked for the age of a child "JL". In this conversation which took place on 3 October 2023, he was told by the child that she was 13 years old. The offender continued the conversation, giving compliments and stating: "You are very sexy. I like you. Send me a photo. I would love to see you." (Count 4 of Indictment A). On the Lenovo there were also searches for "preteen lovers" and similar searches including a Russian child "modelling" site which typically showed naked or semi-naked children. The offender posing as Reece Bailey had offered money for makeup and clothes to child users of Facebook Messenger. Their profile suggested that they are from places such as Thailand and the Philippines.

Having been arrested the offender was interviewed on 3 November 2023. He gave "no comment" responses to a number of the questions asked of him. When asked about the Nokia mobile phone he said he could not remember the phone, that it could be anyone's phone. He said he was not present when the search was carried out. He was asked about the indictment images on the phone and answered "No comment". He also answered "No comment" in relation to the Lenovo tablet. He answered "No comment" in relation to the passport, licence and cards that were found in the name of "Andrew Cassin". He was asked about the cannabis production at 31 Tannock Road and answered "No comment" or remained silent in response to all those questions. When asked about JL the offender said JL was an 18-year-old ladyboy. The offender said that his sexual preferences was for flat chested, skinny, feminine people, male or female. He stated he sent JL £50 and sent money to another ladyboy from Facebook as they had a pageant coming up and needed more makeup. He said that they had both asked for more money and so he stopped speaking to them. He said he was not a "cash goat".

The offender was born on 28 November 1979 and had nine previous convictions for 20 offences. Between 1997 and 2008 there were a number of convictions for relatively low-level offences that did not result in custodial sentences. He was sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment in 2011 for four offences of supplying heroin. He also had two convictions for possession of offensive weapons in a private place which arose from his arrest for these other matters in November 2023, for which he had received a conditional discharge. As we have said, between these sets of offences the offender had been out of the jurisdiction for a significant period.

A pre-sentence report recorded the offender's unwillingness to make admissions about or to confront the prostitution offences. He accepted that he had been a cannabis dealer but denied regular cocaine use or having supplied cocaine to A and B.

There were detailed and eloquent victim statements from A, A's mother and B. It is necessary to refer to them in some detail to understand the profound and permanent damage that the offender inflicted on each of his vulnerable young victims and, in the case of A, her wider family. A said that the crimes happened to her when she was 14. She did not accept what had happened until she was 30. For 16 years she had carried this secret alone. She had raised children with men who did not know what had happened. Long-term friends were similarly unaware. She felt shame that everyone involved in the case knew what had happened to her. She had suffered with mental health problems for the past 20 years. She had been on various medications which had recently been increased. She had struggled to have relationships with men, go on dates or just talk to men. She had felt scared for 20 years. She said that she had an extreme fear of intimate relationship. She was wary of any form of medical treatment. Her memory had been affected. She could not remember birthdays or her own childhood. Since the trial, she would regularly hear the metal door open and the offender say the word "Guilty". She found this unsettling. She had struggled to come to terms with how a man she "idolised" had come to do this to her. He was someone she looked to as her boyfriend. She said:

Twelve months later, at the age of 16, she had become a mother. It was her children who kept her alive. However, they did not have a "normal mum", they had a "deeply traumatised child trying to do anything to feel loved". She struggled to send her children to school because she only thought they were safe when they were altogether. All three of her children suffer with anxiety. She and her children have been denied a normal life.

When her eldest daughter turned 14, A said that her life fell apart. She realised that while her daughter remained a child, at that age she had been a prostitute. Shortly after this she reported matters to police. Since then, A said that she had not been able to breathe. She had been terrified of the repercussions and the toll that the proceedings would take on her fragile mental health. She had recently told her two eldest children and their father. She said: "Watching their hearts break is something I'll never get over". She often wondered what her life would be like if she had not experienced what she had. She said that she had lost her education, her relationship with her family was broken and she had lost all of her friends.

A's mother also provided a victim personal statement. She spoke of the impact that the offending had on the wider family. It had caused her relationship to end. They lost their home and A's father fell into addiction. She described their family as "a broken, separated family with pain and grief that runs so deep it is unfixable". She spoke of the 21 years since the offending happened and the impact that this time had had on the family.

B made a victim statement. She said she had been bullied by the offender. She said that she felt ashamed, embarrassed and pressured by him. She felt "vile". The exploitation caused a downward spiral in her life. She was drinking to excess. Since she had struggled to build and maintain relationships. The relationships with her mother and brother were affected. She did not feel able to tell them what was happening. She felt alone, like the black sheep of the family. She was scared that people might find out what had taken place. She moved to Stockport to get away from Manchester. She was terrified that the video of her having sex would be on the Internet. After a period she managed to block everything out. That was until interaction with the police. By that time, she was living with her partner and daughter. She went into "mum mode", imagining how she would feel if someone did that to her daughter. She has not told her partner the details of what happened to her; the only people she has told are the police. Following the meetings with the police, B had grown apart from her partner. She has become more protective of her daughter. The relationship ended. She had become ostracized by her mother and brother. She put that down to the abuse and the ongoing court case. She had left her job. That had a massive impact on her financially. The exploitation had caused V to suffer from depressive disorders and anxiety. She had self-harmed and had tried to commit suicide in the last month. She was on medication.

In relation to the court proceedings, she said this:

In her preliminary remarks the judge rightly acknowledged that no sentence she could pass and no words that she could utter could repair the damage that had been done to A and B. She described the offender as "predatory, manipulative and egotistical" which we fully endorse. She described A as an exceptionally vulnerable and troubled child, referring to a letter that A's mother had written to Social Services in February 2005 (towards the end of the indictment period) in which she said:

B was 17 and the offender must have realised that both girls were young when he first met them. He was then aged 24. He cultivated A's belief that she was his girlfriend so that he could put her to work for him as a prostitute. He manipulated B in the same way, so that she too became a prostitute for him. He plied them with alcohol and cocaine so that they became compliant. He drove them into the red-light district. Afterwards he took their earnings and just gave them pocket money.

After further background information about the profound impact of the offending on each girl the judge turned to the guidelines. Dealing with the first indictment she correctly identified that count 4 was category 1A. Category 1 because penetrative sex took place with many customers and threats and fear of violence were used to ensure compliance, Category A because of elements of grooming. The starting point was therefore 8 years with a range of six to 11 years. She went on to identify aggravating features:

Turning to mitigating features, the Judge said that the offender was aged between 24 and 25 during the indictment period and that men at that age could be immature risk-takers. He had children and elderly parents who were in poor health. The major offending had happened 20 years before, though his own conduct had delayed the reporting of these matters.

On the basis of this analysis the judge said:

Turning to count 5, where the prosecution had submitted that it was a category 1A case, the judge said:

Turning to count 7, where the prosecution had submitted that it was a category A1 case, the judge said:

On count 4, the Solicitor General submits that the judge was wrong to place weight on the offender's age: far from being a case of an immature man taking risks, the evidence as a whole shows that the offender was an established criminal who was earning substantial amounts from his criminal conduct. Any delay in his being brought to justice was because he had caused his victims to delay reporting his claims by making credible threats. The Solicitor General submits that the appropriate sentence for count 4, viewed on its own and without regard to count 5 or the involvement of B and count 7, was towards the top of the category range. On count 5, the Solicitor General accepts that this offence was part and parcel of the exploitation count 4 and formed part of the threats made by the offender to A. Concurrent sentences are therefore appropriate but the Solicitor General submits that the offence falls within category 1A because the production of the firearm was intended to maximise fear and distress, it was produced as a direct threat, there was intention to cause A to fear violence if she failed to engage in prostitution and severe psychological harm was caused. If concurrent sentences were to be passed, then the sentence on count 4 fell to be adjusted upwards to reflect the additional criminality in count 5. It is submitted that it is artificial to split the harm caused as the judge did. It needed to be borne in mind that immediately after this offence, A was moved to a Secure Unit to keep her away from the offender. In addition, the matter taken into consideration had to be reflected in the sentence on count 4 as the lead offence relating to A.

Turning to count 7, the Solicitor General does not challenge the judge's categorisation of the offence as falling within category A2 but it was aggravated by B's youth and the duration of the offending. The judge should therefore have gone up from the starting point of 2 years 6 months to a notional sentence greater than 3 years before applying any discount for the offender's guilty plea. The 15 per cent reduction for guilty pleas is itself challenged. The Solicitor General submits that a reduction of 5 per cent was all that should be allowed since the case had been opened and the video evidence of A and B had been played to the jury. A had attended court which she had found to be traumatic. In oral submissions, Mr Holt shifted his ground slightly and accepted that it may have been appropriate or possible for the judge to allow 10 per cent.

In conclusion, quite apart from the criticisms of the individual elements of the sentence, if concurrent sentences were to be passed, the sentence on count 4 should have been significantly higher such that the sentence in fact imposed was unduly lenient.

Ms Penfold appears for the offender with Ms Calman, as she did in the court below. We mean no disrespect to Ms Penfold if we summarise her submissions briefly. We have, of course, given close attention to all that she has said both in writing and in the hearing today and wish formally to place on record that her submissions were of the highest quality, saying everything that could possibly be said on the offender's behalf while exercising appropriate restraint and showing fine judgment. The offender's essential submission is that the sentencing judge was well placed to assess what level of sentence would adequately reflect the entirety of the offending carried out against A and B and she did not err in reaching the assessment that she did.

We make two preliminary observations. First, despite Ms Penfold's explanation of the circumstances in which the pleas were entered, we are unable to see any justification for allowing more than a 10 per cent discount for the guilty pleas which were entered after the trial had started. It would have been open to the judge to allow no more than 5 per cent. Allowing 15 per cent appears to us to be wrong in principle. Second, we see no evidence to support the judge's suggestion that immaturity played a significant part so as to amount to mitigation. The offender was clearly an established and serious criminal, making a significant living out of the prostitution into which he had led and kept A and B. This was not immature indulgence in risky behaviour. To the extent that the judge made any allowance for the offender's age, we consider that that was not justified.

Turning to the specific counts. The judge recognised that count 4, taken on its own, demanded that an adjustment to the starting point should be made that would take the notional sentence beyond the category range for category 1A to take account of the aggravating features she identified. We agree. In truth, the offender's mitigation was limited. In our judgment, if count 4 were taken on its own, then before any reduction for guilty pleas the least sentence that could properly have been imposed was one of 12 years. In our judgment, the Solicitor General is correct to concede that the offence under count 5, serious though it was, could properly be the subject of a concurrent sentence since in one respect it formed part of the continued exploitation of A that was charged under count 4. Treating it concurrently removes any need to salami slice the impact on A of counts 4 and 5 respectively. Arguments about categorisation then fall away to some extent. The question becomes what difference to the overall impact of count 4 did the firearm offence make? In our judgment, the impact of the firearm offence and the offence that falls to be taken into consideration is fairly and proportionately recognised by weighting count 4 with an extra 18 months before plea, leading to an adjusted concurrent sentence on count 4 before reduction for guilty pleas of 13½ years. That is very chose to the maximum sentence for count 4 on its own. But in our view, it is justified by the combined impact of count 5 and the offence to be taken into consideration. Applying a 10 per cent discount for plea leads to an adjusted sentence for count 4 of 12 years.

Turning to count 7, the Solicitor General concedes, generously in our judgment, that the judge was entitled to categorise this offence as A2. The offence was aggravated by B's youth and the duration of the offending. That required an upward adjustment from the starting point of 2 years 6 months. In our judgment, the least possible increase would be to a notional sentence of 3 years. There was no substantial mitigation available. Allowing a 10 per cent reduction for plea leads to a sentence of 32 months when count 7 is viewed in isolation. The question then arises whether the sentence on count 7 should be made to run concurrently with or consecutive to the sentence on counts 4 and 5. There are two reasons why we consider that the sentence on count 7 should be consecutive to the sentences on count 4 and 5. First, we consider it important to mark the fact that the offender had two victims, not one, and to recognise the separate impact that the offending under count 7 had on B. Second, the maximum sentence that can be passed on count 4 is 14 years and our conclusion is that the appropriate aggregate sentence on counts 4, 5 and 7 will, as appears below, be more than the 14 years that can be imposed on count 4. Making count 7 run consecutively to counts 4 and 5 requires assessment of the principle of totality. In our judgment, only a minimal reduction for totality is required because count 7 reflects separate offending against the second victim, B. In our judgment, a reduction of the notional sentence on count 7 to 30 months is sufficient adjustment for totality. For these reasons, at this stage, we arrive at notional sentences as follows. On count 4, 12 years; on count 5, 18 months concurrent and on count 7, 30 months consecutive, an aggregate total of 14½ years. We then stand back to review that resulting aggregate sentence. In our judgment, when the first indictment is considered as a whole, the aggregate sentence of 14½ years is not merely just and proportionate but is the least that can properly reflect the criminality of the offender's conduct. No further reduction is required on grounds of totality or otherwise.

Taking the 14½ years on the first indictment with the sentences imposed on indictments A and B leads to an overall aggregate sentence of 18 years and 3 months. Once again, we stand back and review this sentence. It is undoubtedly a heavy sentence for the offender to bear but the three indictments charge completely different serious criminality over completely different periods and we see no principled reason for making any further adjustment. Accordingly, we quash the sentences imposed on counts 4 and 7 of the first indictment. On count 4 there will now be a sentence of 12 years and on count 7 there will be a sentence of 30 months consecutive. All other sentences and orders remain as before.