HKSAR v. L.L.C.

HCCC 50/2025

[2025] HKCFI 2649

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 50 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to 15 counts of Indecent Assault[1] (Charge 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18), and 3 counts of Making child pornography[2] (Charge 3, 6, 9), admitted to the Summary of Facts, and was committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence. He confirmed his pleas and admission before me and his convictions were duly recorded.

FACTS

2.  Two of the Making child pornography charges involved both X and Y as the victims (charges 3 and 6).  The rest of the charges each involved either X or Y as the victim.  

3.  The defendant and his wife are the maternal grandfather and grandmother of X and Y, who are biological sisters born, respectively, in April 2012 and September 2014.  Their parents have a total of 4 children, with an elder and a younger brother making up the family.  

4.  Before mid-2020, the defendant and his wife lived at the Original Flat[3]. They moved to the Temporary Flat for a few months during the Original Flat’s renovation, and returned later in the same year.  

5.  All 18 offences took place between 2020 and 2021 when X and Y would visit and stay at either the Original or Temporary Flat on different occasions.  

CHARGES 1 TO 3: TEMPORARY FLAT

6.  Charges 1, 2 and 3 were committed on the same occasion, which took place on an unknown day in 2020 at the Temporary Flat, when X and Y were, respectively, about 7 or 8 and 5 to 6 years old.  The defendant would have been around 70 years old.

7.  The defendant was alone in the Temporary Flat with X and Y after their grandmother had left for work at around 8pm.  The defendant told the girls he would check for soreness on their buttocks and removed all their clothes, as well as his own.  

8.  He told them to lie on the bed and spread their legs wide, took 2 to 3 photos of their private parts with his mobile phone, and then showed X.  The photos captured the naked bodies of X and Y from their neck down to their feet (charge 3).

9.  The defendant then touched the private parts of X and Y in turn, for around 20 seconds and 1 minute respectively.  The defendant asked X if she felt comfortable.  X felt disgusted but did not say anything.

10.  The defendant went on to lick X’s private part for around 40 to 50 seconds.  X had tried to push the defendant away but was not able to do so.  The defendant then rubbed his penis against X’s private part, while touching Y’s private part at the same time, until he ejaculated on X’s stomach (in relation to the assault against X and Y, charge 1 and 2, respectively).

CHARGES 4 TO 6: TEMPORARY FLAT

11.  Charges 4, 5 and 6 took place at the Temporary Flat when X and Y were, respectively, 7 or 8, and 5 or 6 years old.  The defendant would have been around 70 years old.

12.  On another unknown day in 2020 inside the Temporary Flat, at around 10 pm when the grandmother had left home for work, the defendant removed all of X and Y’s clothes as well as his own, and then told them to lie on the bed.  The defendant took 2 to 3 photos of the private parts of X and Y with his mobile phone.  He showed X the photos.  X felt annoyed but did not say anything (charge 6).

13.  The defendant then pulled X’s legs apart and licked her private part for around 2 to 3 minutes.  He then did the same to Y for another 2 to 3 minutes.  Both X and Y had tried to push the defendant away but were unable to do so.  The defendant then touched the girls’ private part at the same time with his hands for around 3 minutes.

14.  The defendant then rubbed his erected penis against Y’s private part for some time, and then against X’s private part for around 5 minutes, eventually ejaculating on X’s stomach.  He then kissed X and Y on their lips, and told them to continue tomorrow as his semen was used up (in relation to the assault against X and Y, charge 4 and 5, respectively).

CHARGES 7 TO 10: TEMPORARY FLAT

15.  Charges 7 to 10 took place the day after the above incident at the Temporary Flat.  They were all committed against X, who was about 7 or 8 years old.  The defendant would have been around 70 years old.

16.  At around 7pm, while the grandmother was playing on her phone in bed, the defendant took X and Y to the area outside the washroom and stood them side by side.  The defendant inserted his hand into X’s skirt and touched her private part outside her underpants for about half a minute.  He told X to keep quiet, but asked in a whisper if she felt comfortable.  X felt uncomfortable but did not say anything. X later went into the washroom by herself (charge 7).

17.  At around 8:30pm, after the grandmother had left for work, the defendant removed all his clothes and X’s clothes except her vest.  He told X to lie on the bed and spread her legs wide, and then rubbed his penis against her private part for about 2 minutes (charge 8), taking a video with his mobile phone during the process (charge 9).  The defendant ejaculated on X’s stomach after a few minutes.  He showed the video to X, which did not capture X’s face but did depict the rubbing of his penis against X.  The defendant then kissed X on her lips for about half a minute.

18.  That same night at around 2am, while Y was asleep, X got up to use the bathroom.  Upon her return to her bed, the defendant, who was lying in another bed, exposed his naked lower body to X and told her to kneel beside the bed and lick his penis.  X refused.  The defendant sat up and pushed X’s head towards his penis, touching her lips once.  The defendant told X to lie on the bed and spread her legs wide. X complied.  The defendant rubbed his penis against X’s private part and kissed her on the lips for about 20 seconds.  X felt the defendant’s penis was erect.  The rubbing continued until the defendant ejaculated onto X’s stomach (charge 10).

CHARGE 11: ORIGINAL FLAT

19.  The indecent assault in charge 11 took place back at the Original Flat, when X was around 7 or 8 years old.  The defendant would have been around 70.

20.  At around midnight on 30^th December 2020, after the grandmother had left home for work, and while X and her elder brother were in bed together, with the defendant lying between them, X felt something wet touching her buttocks and upper thighs.

21.  X lifted up the quilt and saw that it was the defendant’s penis.  She felt uncomfortable and kept moving closer to the wall to avoid being touched but was not able to do so. The touching continued for about 25 minutes (charge 11).

CHARGE 12: ORIGINAL FLAT

22.  A few days later, at around 7pm on 3^rd or 4^th January 2021, while the defendant and X were alone in the Original Flat, the defendant told X to lie on the sofa.  After X had done so, the defendant pulled down her pants and underpants, and licked her private part for around 15 minutes.  X tried to push the defendant away but was not able to do so (charge 12).

DISCOVERY OF THE ASSAULTS

23.  About 3 years after that last incident, on 19^th January 2024, X told her school social worker that the defendant had sexually assaulted her and Y on multiple occasions.  The case was reported to the Social Welfare Department and then the police on the same day.  

24.  The defendant was arrested on the following day.  He admitted under caution to have indecently assaulted X and said that he was remorseful.  

25.  In the subsequent video recorded interviews, the defendant admitted to having assaulted X and Y on numerous occasions, to taking photos of their private parts, and to having recorded video of him rubbing his penis against X’s private part.  He claimed that the photos and footages had been deleted and the mobile phone used to take them sold.  He had told X and Y not to tell anyone about what happened.

26.  In addition to the above incidents relating to charges 1 to 12, the defendant confessed to committing the below offences.

CHARGES 13 AND 14: ORIGINAL FLAT

27.  On an unknown day in 2020 or 2021, at around 11pm in the Original Flat, after his wife had left home for work, the defendant said he had showered together with X and Y.  After the shower and when all three of them were still naked, the defendant told the girls that they were going to play a game.  This led to the defendant rubbing his penis against X and then Y’s private part, each for about a few seconds.  The defendant then rubbed his penis against X’s private part again for about 5 minutes until he ejaculated (in relation to the assault against X and Y, charge 13 and 14, respectively).

CHARGE 15: ORIGINAL FLAT

28.  About 2 to 3 days after the charge 14 incident, at around 11pm inside the Original Flat, after his wife had gone to work, and while X was asleep, the defendant said to Y to play a game.  The defendant then removed his and Y’s underpants and rubbed his penis against Y’s private part for about 1 to 2 minutes until the defendant ejaculated on her stomach (charge 15).

CHARGE 16: TEMPORARY FLAT

29.  On a different unknown day in 2020, at around 11pm in the Temporary Flat, after his wife had left for work and while Y was asleep, the defendant said to X to play a game.  He removed his and X’s underpants and began to kiss X on her lips.  The defendant then licked and rubbed his penis against X’s private part for around 3 minutes until he ejaculated on her stomach (charge 16).

CHARGE 17: ORIGINAL FLAT

30.  On another day in 2020 or 2021, at the Original Flat, after the defendant’s wife had left for work at around 11pm, the defendant removed his and X’s underpants and licked her private part and rubbed his penis against her private part for around 2 minutes until he ejaculated on her stomach (charge 17).

CHARGE 18: ORIGINAL FLAT

31.  On another day in 2020 or 2021 at the Original Flat, after his wife had left for work at around 11pm, the defendant told Y that they were going to play a game and then removed his and Y’s underpants and rubbed his penis against her private part for about 2 to 3 minutes until he ejaculated on her stomach (charge 18).

32.  When asked about the incidents in charges 1 to 12 as depicted by X and Y, the defendant claimed that he was only able to recall 3 of the indecent assaults, and was not sure if the rest did happen, but he would not deny the possibility that they did so happen.

PREVIOUS CONVICTION

33.  The defendant was of previously clear record.

BACKGROUND AND MITIGATION

34.  The defendant was born in mainland China in December 1949 and is 75 years old.  He arrived in Hong Kong in 1973 and had previously worked as a security guard, and retired when he was 65 years old in 2014.  The defendant is married to his 66 year-old wife who suffers from liver disease, and they rely on social welfare assistance. They have one daughter, the mother of X and Y.

35.  Mr. Kevin Chan, counsel for the defendant, told the court that the defendant’s close relatives have refused to see him anymore after learning about this case, and that this is already tremendous punishment for the defendant.

36.  Mr. Chan fairly pointed out the young age of X and Y, the breach of trust on the defendant’s part, the expected psychological trauma the girls will suffer for the rest of their lives, and the fact that there had been multiple offences are all aggravating features in this case.

37.  In relation to the 3 making of child pornography offences, Mr. Chan submitted that given the circumstances of their commission, their sentences should be made concurrent to their corresponding indecent assault sentences.

REPORTS

X’S IMPACT REPORT

38.  Clinical Psychologist Ms. Wong interviewed X on two occasions in April 2025 when X was 13 years old.  Ms. Wong had been engaged as X’s psychologist since August 2024 upon referral for psychotherapy after the exposure of the assaults.

39.  It is Ms. Wong’s finding that X suffers from post-traumatic stress and dissociative symptoms as a result of the indecent assaults.  X blames herself for what had happened, which contributes to her being depressed, anxious, and having suicidal ideation.

40.  X’s decision to talk about the assaults with the school social worker was based on her intention to protect herself and her younger sister, Y.  She was, however, fearful when the police was involved, and had frequent nightmares.  She did feel relieved when she found her mother supportive of her decision.  

41.  Unfortunately, X’s relationship with her maternal grandmother, the defendant’s wife, suffered. X was accused by the grandmother of lying about the assaults.  X felt that the defendant had been picking on her after the disclosure, and she was worried about the defendant taking revenge on her.  Most of X’s nightmares were related to fear and danger.

42.  Despite what was happening at home, X was able to function relatively well, and has been maintaining good relationships with her peers, teachers and social worker.

43.  It is Ms. Wong’s opinion that X still suffers from the sexual abuse, affecting her psychological well-being and familial relationship.  The abuse happened when she was a child and it was difficult for her to comprehend and cope with such a traumatic event, which led to her mental health being negatively affected.  X needs to be protected from her fear of retaliation and the pain she feels of being rejected by those who used to be close to her.  

44.  Ms. Wong recommends that psychological treatment for X should be continued.

Y’S IMPACT REPORT

45.  Ms. Wong also interviewed Y on two occasions in April 2025 in preparation for her impact report.  Y was 10 years and 7 months old.

46.  Y still harbors a lot of feelings concerning the abuses but showed strong avoidance towards dealing with them.  She avoided thinking about them, pretended they had not happened, and avoided things that would remind her of them.  She has been trying to remove the abuse from her memory, to wish them away.

47.  Y refused to talk about the abuses despite appearing cheerful and talkative when interviewed alone.  She would divert the conversation and claim to have forgotten what had happened, refusing to share her thoughts and feelings.  Y was, however, more willing to show her emotions when interviewed together with her elder sister, X. She admitted to Ms. Wong that she did not want to think of the abuses and did not hope to see her grandfather again.

48.  It is Ms. Wong’s finding that Y has displayed post-traumatic stress symptoms as a result of the abuses, and that psychological treatment will need to be continued.

THE DEFENDANT’S PSYCHOLOGICAL REPORT

49.  In the psychological report prepared by Clinical Psychologist Mr. Ivan Ma, further details of the defendant’s background were disclosed.

50.  The defendant was born in Malaysia, the second of four siblings.  His parents had a conflictual relationship, leading his mother to end the marriage when he was around 15.  She committed suicide before moving to mainland China with the children, leaving only the defendant and his elder brother to go to China.  Due to the Cultural Revolution, the defendant had to stop his studies and had to work, feeling lonely due to the abrupt changes.

51.  In 1973, the defendant moved to Hong Kong for a better life, working as a porter and then in a mechanics factory for twenty years.  After the factory closed, he worked as a security guard from 1998 until his retirement in 2013.  He maintained stable employment and enjoyed social activities like badminton and hiking.

52.  The defendant met his wife in 1985 and married her the next year.  They had a daughter in 1987.  He described their marriage as satisfactory for the first fifteen years, with ample communication and few conflicts.  He enjoyed a harmonious family life with his wife and daughter.

53.  The defendant filed for bankruptcy in 2000, which he disclosed only after the psychologist had learned about it from his wife and asked the defendant about it.  He explained that financial issues arose from family expenses, leading to marital strain as his wife lost trust in him.  Since it was his wife who managed all finances, and he had to hand over his salary monthly, he felt disrespected as a result.

54.  Since retiring, the defendant’s marital relationship has worsened.  His wife would often lose her temper over money and trivial matters, and complain that he did not work or contribute to the family.  The defendant feels despised and lacks status at home.  He accumulates negative emotions and avoids conflicts by limiting communication with her, spending most of his time watching television.  Despite having friends, he does not share his personal issues or emotions with them.

55.  The defendant’s wife provided information that was different to the defendant’s version.  She described him as a passive person and that they lacked communication.  She said the defendant had to file for bankruptcy as a result of his overspending.  She did not think of him as a responsible family man as he could not manage the finances of the family well.  Regarding their marital sex life, she often rejected his requests, and would engage in intercourse less than once a month.

56.  She, however, saw that the defendant was very close with their granddaughters and he would play games with them.  Since she had to work the night shift as a security guard, the defendant would be the one to take care of the grandchildren, and she was not aware of the assaults until his arrest.  

57.  In his interviews with the psychologist, the defendant claimed that about a week before his first assault of the children, X had been asking him to “perform ejaculation” in front of X and Y.  He felt shocked about the request initially but decided to do it eventually, thinking it could be a form of sex education for his granddaughters.  He claimed that he ejaculated in front of them by rubbing his un-erected penis without sexual arousal.

58.  The defendant also claimed that it was X who had asked him to touch the private parts of X and Y.  He then claimed to the psychologist to have forgotten the details of the assault but admitted to having been sexually aroused.

59.  The defendant did admit to losing his self-control, and that it was he who made the sexual advances in the subsequent assaults.  He took photos of the assault to prove to himself that he was not impotent, to make himself feel proud.  

60.  The defendant said he had never been sexually attracted to any children other than his granddaughters.  He imagined them as female adults during the assaults.  He claimed that neither X nor Y demonstrated any resistance and seemed to have enjoyed his sexual advances.  

61.  Mr. Ma found the defendant of normal intelligence and able to differentiate right from wrong, and could understand the consequences of his unlawful acts.

62.  Tests revealed a marked propensity to present himself favourably to others.  Mr. Ma observed that the defendant had concealed his bankruptcy and the problems he had with his wife, and was evasive when being confronted about them.

63.  Mr. Ma found that the defendant did not have “deep rooted criminal attitudes”, but was “a loner with suppressed emotions and low self-esteem”.  He came across as a passive person, keeping things to himself, probably as a result of his difficult childhood.

64.  Regarding the offences, it seemed to him that the defendant was using “sex education” as an excuse to satisfy his sexual and intimacy needs through the sexual contacts with the victims, with whom he often spent time and felt emotionally close.  His sexual self-control was particularly loosened under chronic pent-up negative emotions and distress.  Such behaviours also served a purpose for him to regain some power and self-esteem, which also indicated his distorted sex attitudes.

65.  Despite the young age of the victims, there is no evidence to assert that the defendant had pedophilia, which is a psychological disorder characterized by recurrent sexual fantasies, impulses, or behaviours directed towards pre-pubescent individuals.

66.  With reference to the results from sex offence-specific actuarial risk assessment scales, the risk for the defendant to commit offences of similar nature in the future falls within the low range given his old age and absence of antisociality.

67.  Mr. Ma finds that the defendant had shown genuine remorse and had acknowledged the impact of his criminal act on the victims and the family.  Psychological intervention targeting his distorted sexual attitudes, weakness in intimacy skills, emotional regulation and stress management would be beneficial.

SENTENCING

68.  The maximum sentence on conviction upon indictment for indecent assault and making of child pornography is, respectively, that of 10 years’ and 8 years’ imprisonment and a fine of $2,000,000.

SENTENCING PRINCIPLES

69.  It is trite law that in sentencing cases such as the present one, the court must protect innocent and trusting children, try to prevent similar vulnerable individuals from being sexually assaulted and suffering physical and psychological trauma.  Deterrent sentences are necessary to prevent others from committing similar crimes, to reflect public abhorrence of such offenses, and hopefully to redress the grievance suffered by the victims and their families. 

70.  The above principle is summarized from the Court of Appeal’s judgment in HKSAR v Tsang Chiu Tak[4].  There the Court explained that the factors to take into consideration when dealing with offences of sexual assault on a child included:

(a)  the age difference between the defendant and the victim;

(b)  the relationship between the defendant and the victim and whether the defendant had taken advantage of his position or status and whether the offence involved a breach of trust;

(c)  whether the defendant had used threats or inducements to make the victim succumb;

(d)  the number of occasions of committing the offences and the duration of them;

(e)  whether violence was used by the defendant on the victim;

(f)  whether the defendant took any safety precautions;

(g)  whether the abuse had caused physical or psychological trauma to the victim;

(h)  whether the offence had any impact on the victim’s family members;

(i)  whether the defendant was involved in other inappropriate conduct or behaviour in committing the offence, such as inviting others to watch or film the offending conduct; and

(j)  whether the defendant is paedophilic or mentally disturbed and likely to reoffend.

INDECENT ASSAULTS

71.  In the case of HKSAR v Chow Yuen Fai[5], the Court of Appeal reiterated that in indecent assault cases it is neither possible nor practicable to fix a tariff given the varied circumstances in which these offences can arise.

72.  Having identified certain aggravating features, which are included in those set out in the above case of Tsang Chui Tak, the Court in Chow Yuen Fai proceeded to refer to the following cases:

“44. Again, the references made by counsel to previous cases are of limited assistance, given the difference in facts, but they do provide some sort of indication of the degree of seriousness with which these offences are treated by the courts: -

(1)  In Kong Yun Chiu[6], to which reference has already been made…, the accused faced 2 counts of indecent assault on a girl aged 8. On both occasions, he pulled down the victim’s underwear, masturbated and then ejaculated. There was the element of a breach of trust in that the accused was the victim’s maternal uncle. The Court of Appeal was of the view that the correct sentence was 5 years’ imprisonment (reduced to 3 years 4 months for the guilty plea).

(2)  In Wong Ying Ho[7]…, the accused pleaded guilty to one count of indecent assault. Having examined a girl aged 8, the accused (a doctor)  indulged in a series of indecent acts, including putting his penis into the girl’s mouth and asking her to lick it. The judge below took a starting point of 4 years, but discounted it to 2 years 6 months for the plea. This sentence was upheld by the Court of Appeal, although it was remarked that a higher starting point could have been imposed. This was again a breach of trust case.

(3)  In HKSAR v Chau Shu Ho [2008] 5 HKLRD 796, the accused was convicted after trial of 4 counts of indecent assault and one of common assault (a relatively minor one). The assaults took place over a 4-month period, and involved oral sex and the accused ejaculating. The victim was a 10-year old boy. The accused was also in a position of trust, he having represented to the victim that he was a teacher. There was also evidence that the victim was severely traumatized. The accused indicated no remorse and there was said to be a moderate risk of re-offending. The overall sentence of 8 years was not disturbed. It was, however, remarked by the Court of Appeal that in relation to two of the counts of indecent assault (one involving the accused sucking the victim’s penis and ejaculating on the buttocks of the victim; the other involving oral sex performed on the victim even though the boy said it hurt, together with a threat to take away gifts), the individual sentences of 4 years were too low.”

73.  In the present case, the breach of trust was very serious; there was a huge age gap between the defendant and the girls; the victims were very young of between 5 and 8 years old; there were repeated assaults on them within a period of a year or so; and the defendant did attempt to prevent X and Y from telling others what he had done to them on some occasions.  When considered together, these matters put this case in the serious end of the spectrum of gravity.

74.  The seriousness is slightly mitigated by the Clinical Psychologist’s finding that the defendant is not a paedophile, and that his risk of re-offending is assessed as being in the low range.  The defendant is 75 years old and the length of the eventual sentence would likely mean that by the time of his release he would be in or near his 80s, thus further reducing the risk of his re-offending, be it towards X and Y, or other young children.

75.  Furthermore, the assaults were committed within a one year period and only towards X and Y.  There is no evidence that he was targeting others.  He stopped after realizing how wrong his conduct was.  Apart from the assaults, he had been a caring grandfather to the girls and his wife confirmed that to be the case.  

MAKING OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY

76.  The Court of Appeal in Chow Yuen Fai found that the classification of the levels of child pornography adopted in the case of Man Kwong Choi[8] in relation to possession of child pornography sentencing is applicable equally in making of child pornography cases[9].

77.  In relation to the 2 to 3 photos in count 3 and 6, they would be classified as level 1 on the basis that they are “Images depicting erotic posing with no sexual activity”.  The guideline sentence for possession of small quantity of level 1 material can be a community service order, probation or fine.

78.  In relation to the video in count 9, which depicted “non-penetrative sexual activity between adults and children”, it would be classified as level 3 material.  The guideline sentence for possession of small quantity of level 3 material should be between 6 and 12 months, with the sentence very much dependent on the quantity.

79.  The Court in Man Kwong Choi stated that aggravating factors include the age of the children depicted in the material.  Where the depictions involve particularly young children, this would be an important consideration.  The purpose of the possession is also relevant, with intention to disseminate for gain, or intention to publish as significant aggravating factors.

80.  The said guidelines were laid down with the offence of possession of child pornography in mind, and as the Court of Appeal in Chow Yuen Fai pointed out, the making of child pornography is treated more seriously than mere possession, it must be the case that the making of the same level of material would attract higher sentences.  

81.  In the present case, the quantity of material being made was very small.  There is no evidence to suggest that the defendant had any intention of dissemination.  The one significant aggravating factor is the very young age of X and Y.

82.  Having taken into consideration all the above mentioned facts, and mindful of the sentences in previous cases, I will sentence the defendant on the individual counts as follows:

83.  In adopting the above starting points in relation to the indecent assault offences, for those where videos or photos had been taken of the assaults, since the starting points for the assault has already been enhanced for this aggravating factor, the making of child pornography charge sentence should run concurrently with the corresponding indecent assault sentences, so as to ensure the defendant is not doubly punished.

84.  In relation to the indecent assaults where there had been licking of the private parts of the child, or the rubbing of penis against the child, a higher starting point has been adopted to reflect the added seriousness when compared to touching with hands.

85.  Given the uncertainty in the exact sequence of the offences taking place, it is not possible to decide on which offences should be enhanced for repeated offending, and I find it better to deal with the repeated offending when considering the sentences under the next heading.  

TOTALITY

86.  The next matter to be dealt with is the application of the totality principle, and I would like to refer to the following passage in the judgment of HKSAR v Ngai Yiu Ching, CACC 107/2011:

“22. The importance of the totality principle cannot be overstated. It is there to ensure not only fairness to the offender, in the sense that he is not punished twice for the same offence and, further, that the sentence is not an unduly crushing punishment but it is also a tool by which to ensure that ‘the overall effect of the sentences is sufficient having regard to the usual principles of deterrence, rehabilitation and denunciation.’: R v K M [2004] NSWCCA 65 at paragraph 55.”

87.  Taking into consideration all the facts in this case, I find that an overall starting point of 10 years’ imprisonment when all the offences are considered together would be sufficient to achieve the deterrence necessary, and to redress the grievance suffered by the children and their other family members.

88.  I note the age of the defendant and am aware that there is the likelihood that he may be spending the rest of his life in prison.  I also take note of the impact the case have had on the family as a whole and find that there is cause for leniency for the sake of everyone involved.  Taking a step back, I will grant the defendant a reduction of 9 months on this basis, leading to a lowered overall starting point of 9 years 3 months’ imprisonment.  

89.  There are no further mitigating factors other than the defendant’s timely pleas, for which he is granted the usual one-third discount, leading to a sentence of 6 years 2 months’ imprisonment after plea.  I find that this is a fair, just and balanced sentence in the circumstances.  

90.  To achieve this final overall sentence, I order 2 years and 2 months of the after plea sentence in count 2 to be served consecutively to the 4 years sentence in count 1, the balance concurrently together with the rest of the sentences in all the remaining counts, resulting in the sentence of 6 years 2 months’ imprisonment after plea for all 18 offences.