HKSAR v. LAW YUEN LUNG

HCCC 375/2025

[2026] HKCFI 3186

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 375 OF 2025

________________________

_________________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

_________________________________

INTRODUCTION

1.  Defendant, LAW Yuen‑lung, pleaded guilty in the Magistrates’ Court on 30 October 2025 to a total of twelve charges, which have been committed to the High Court for sentence.  Before me, Defendant confirmed his pleas and the admission of the summary of facts.  The charges are as follows:

· Seven charges of indecent assault, contrary to section 122(1) of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap.200 (Charges 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9 and 11);

· One charge of homosexual buggery with a man under the age of 16, contrary to section 118C(a) of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200 (Charge 8);

· Three charges of attempting to make child pornography, contrary to section 3(1) of the Prevention of Child Pornography Ordinance, Cap.579 and section 159G of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap.200 (Charges 4, 7 and 10);

· One charge of possession of child pornography, contrary to section 3(3) of the Prevention of Child Pornography Ordinance, Cap.579 (Charge 12).

2.  All the offences involve three male primary school students – referred to in the psychological reports as X, Y and Z – who were aged 10 or 11 at the time.  Defendant was at the material times of the offences employed as a computer technical staff member (IT technician) at the school in Wong Tai Sin, Kowloon.  He used his position, his access to the Campus Television Station (“the Station”), and the trust reposed in him by the young students to groom the three victims and committed repeated sexual acts against them.

BACKGROUND FACTS

3.  X, Y and Z were all Primary 5 students.  X was born on 10 December 2013, Y on 11 July 2013 and Z on 8 May 2013.  Defendant was the school’s IT technician.

4.  On 15 April 2024, X told his mother that Defendant had sexually abused him after school that day. The next day, X’s mother reported this to the school social worker.  The school then interviewed students, and two more victims – Y and Z – were identified.

Offence against X (Charge 11 – indecent assault)

5.  At around 5:25 pm on 15 April 2024, after a school filming activity, Defendant asked X to stay behind at the Station.  Defendant showed X some videos.  After a short while, Defendant instructed X to stand up.  He then pulled down X’s pants and underwear to his knee level and proceeded to molest both the upper and lower parts of X’s private parts, i.e. his penis and testicles.  X told Defendant that he felt itchy and uncomfortable.  Defendant took out his mobile phone and pointed the camera toward X’s private parts.  X confronted Defendant, asking, “What are you doing?”  Upon hearing this, Defendant put down the phone.  The entire process lasted for about 9 minutes.  X also asked Defendant whether Y had tried these before.  Defendant replied that Y had tried it and X would soon get used to it.

Offences against Y (Charges 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)

6.  Y was about 10 or 11 years old.  Defendant touched Y’s penis and, on some occasions, took photographs of it.

7.  Charge 1 (indecent assault) – On an unknown day in March 2024, Defendant approached Y and instructed him to meet at the Station.  When they were inside, Defendant proceeded to touch Y’s penis.   Defendant warned Y not to disclose the events to anyone.

8.  Charges 2 and 3 (indecent assault) – On two separate unknown days in March 2024, during lunchtime (1:00 pm to 1:30 pm), while Y and Defendant were alone in the Station, Defendant told Y to take off his pants, saying he wanted to have a look.  Y did as he was told.  Defendant molested Y’s penis on both occasions.  Y felt some pain.  Each incident lasted about 5 to 6 minutes.

9.  Charge 4 (attempting to make child pornography) – On the second of those two occasions (the same unknown day in March 2024)   Defendant used his mobile phone to take photographs of Y’s penis, but the photographs either were not saved or were deleted – hence the charge is one of attempt.

10.  Charges 6 and 7 (indecent assault and attempting to make child pornography on 3 April 2024) – On 2 April 2024, Defendant told Y to return to school for filming for a competition during the school holidays.  On 3 April 2024, Y attended the Station alone.  Defendant told Y to take off his pants.  He then molested Y’s penis for a few minutes (Charge 6).  Defendant also took two to three photographs of Y’s penis but later deleted them because they were blurred and therefore, the child pornography charge is one of attempt (Charge 7).

11.  Charge 8 (homosexual buggery with a man under 16) – On the morning of 9 April 2024 (Easter holidays), Defendant contacted Y by phone and asked him to return to school for filming purposes.  Prior to lunch, in the Station, Defendant told Y to take off his pants and Y took off his pants and underwear himself.  Defendant suggested to “link” his penis to Y’s buttock.  Y knelt on an armchair. Defendant applied lubricant to Y’s buttocks. He then inserted his penis into Y’s anus.  Y felt the penetration, which caused him pain.  During the incident, Y asked Defendant when it would end and urged him to hurry up. Defendant responded that he needed more time.  The entire process spanned around 15 minutes. After the incident, Defendant helped clean Y’s buttocks as some watery fluid had come out.  During this time, Y felt that Defendant’s penis was still in contact with his buttock. Defendant admitted under caution that he ejaculated on Y’s abdomen.  No condom was used.

12.  Charges 9 and 10 (indecent assault and attempting to make child pornography on 9 April 2024, afternoon) – After lunch on the same day, Defendant asked Y if he wanted to rest in the Station and handed him the Station’s key, asking Y to wait there for his return.  When Defendant arrived, he locked the door.  Defendant then asked Y if he could look at his penis, and Y agreed.  At Defendant’s request, Y removed his pants.  Defendant proceeded to molest Y’s penis for a few minutes. Y felt itchy (Charge 9 – indecent assault).  Defendant then instructed Y to hold his own penis while Defendant took photographs of it, reassuring Y that the photos would not be shared.  Those photographs were either not saved or of poor quality – hence Charge 10 is an attempt.

Offence against Z (Charge 5 – indecent assault)

13.  On a day in March 2024, Z met Defendant after school on the 2nd floor corridor.  Defendant tickled Z’s waist and molested Z’s penis over his pants.  Z could feel Defendant’s thumb and index fingers.  It lasted for about one second.  Other students were nearby.

Possession of child pornography (Charge 12)

14.  Upon a house search on 16 April 2024, the police seized an Apple mobile phone (Exh.1), a SanDisk external hard disk (Exh.2), a Seagate external hard disk (Exh.3), a Razer laptop (Exh.4) and a desktop computer (Exh.5).  Those devices contained a large collection of child pornography:

· 2 photographs in Exh.1 (the mobile phone);

· 83 photographs in Exh.2;

· 755 photographs in Exh.3;

· 36 photographs and 6 video clips in Exh.4 (the laptop);

· 2 video clips in Exh.5 (the desktop).

In total, 876 photographs and 8 video clips, all depicting children under the age of 16. The materials included serious features: penetration without condoms, anal sex, insertion of hard objects, children crying or looking distressed, and images involving multiple children. Defendant admitted possession of all these materials (Charge 12).

THE PSYCHOLOGICAL REPORTS ON THE VICTIMS AND THE DEFENDANT

Victim X

15.  X, then aged 12 years 4 months, reported intense fear and shock during the incident.  He found it difficult to reconcile Defendant’s behaviour with his previous perception of Defendant as friendly, humorous and kind.  X expressed regret for accepting Defendant’s invitation to stay after school without parental consent.  He felt relieved that Defendant had been arrested.

16.  Psychologically, X maintained positive self‑esteem.  However, since the incident, he has exhibited increased vigilance towards adult male strangers, heightened alertness when alone, and a fear of being followed.  No significant emotional disturbance or PTSD was found.  Psychological follow-up was considered not necessary.

Victim Y

17.  Y, then aged 12, was sexually assaulted by Defendant from the age of 10, with the abuse escalating from touching and attempted photography to buggery.  Defendant groomed Y using shared interests (IT, video games), gifts (Pokémon game points) and special privileges (using the school TV station).  Y felt confused and unable to say no.  Y had to undergo monthly blood tests for nearly a year to check for STDs and HIV (all negative).

18.  In his own account, Y stated that he could not reject Defendant’s sexual advances and he tolerated them, hoping Defendant would stop.  He now feels anger and hatred towards Defendant.  He showed no PTSD, but the avoidance score was high (15, compared to the clinical sample average of 9.3).  The psychologist warned that this avoidance may prevent Y from fully processing the trauma and could delay the manifestation of its impact.  Y’s family members were overwhelmed by shock and rage and were bearing significant pain given the harm and violations that their child had experienced.

Victim Z

19.  Z, then aged 12, was indecently assaulted on several occasions (Defendant admitted 5 to 10 times).  Z regarded Defendant as an “assistant” rather than a teacher.  The touching (patting of private parts) occurred during play.  Z felt it was “weird” and inappropriate but did not tell Defendant to stop because he thought he might have misunderstood.

20.  The assessment revealed no clinically significant post‑traumatic symptoms.  Z’s mental state, daily functioning and social preferences were reportedly not affected.

Defendant

21.  The purpose of obtaining the Psychologist’s Report is to assess his intellectual functioning, his personality, as well as his risk of sexual re-offending.  Defendant admitted to viewing child pornography which fulfilled his sexual curiosity.  In the end of 2023, he joined a Telegram group through online friends where AI-generated or real photos and videos of child pornography were sent out daily. He claimed that it featured children from around 6 to 15 years old, and that he even tried using AI technology to unclothe children in photos.  He admitted that seeing both male and female children’s genitalia and the children’s reaction during the acts fulfilled his sexual curiosity and eased his boredom.  

22.  Defendant admitted full responsibility of his offences in the report.  He admitted he experienced some sexual arousal during the index offences with victim Y and X.  Although he viewed child pornographic materials of both male and female children, he admittedly felt more emotionally close and could relate with male children specifically and confessed to exploiting their bond to fulfil his sexual curiosity.  Although Defendant reported a sense of guilt and remorse, the report says that he still struggled to verbalise the specific consequences and impact on the victim.  Nevertheless, showing an awareness of his deviant sexual interest, he expressed great motivation to receive psychological treatment to prevent re-offending.

23.  The overall clinical impression is that his risk of re-offending was assessed to be high.  His condition warrants a diagnosis of Pedophilic Disorder at the time of the offences.  In view of his condition, he is recommended to receive long-term, intensive psychological treatment that focuses on managing his deviant sexual interest toward children.

DEFENDANT’S BACKGROUND AND MITIGATION

24.  Defendant is a Hong Kong resident.  He has no previous criminal convictions.  He was employed as a computer technical staff member at the school.  He was arrested on 16 April 2024 and has been in custody since.

25.  I have carefully considered the detailed mitigation submissions filed by Defence Counsels, Mr. Benjamin Chong, Mr. Jonathan Mak and Mr. Ken Tai, together with the supporting annexures and mitigation letters.

26.  Defendant is now 30 years old, single, and was born and raised in Hong Kong.  Before his arrest, he lived with his parents and younger sister in a public housing unit.  He received education up to Form 6 level and later completed a certificate programme in IT teaching and administrative support, as well as other IT-related training.

27.  Since his graduation, Defendant first worked freelance as an audio‑video technician.  He then served as IT technician in various primary and secondary schools.  At the time of arrest, he was working as an IT technician and photographer at the material school, earning around HK$21,000 monthly.

28.  Defendant was raised in a blue‑collar family.  His parents are in their 50s and 60s respectively and received education up to Form 3 level.  His fatherworks as a delivery man.  His mother was a clothing salesperson and then a housewife.  His sister, now 29, is a saleslady.

29.  I was told that Defendant has been dedicated to social service.  During his teenage years, he was a member of various social service and moral and civic education associations, including Community Youth Club, Junior Police Call, Scout, IT Prefect and Librarian.  In 2013, he was qualified as an adult leader for the Scout Association of Hong Kong.  During his remand, he asked his family to donate to charity to help victims of the Tai Po fire accident.

30.  Defendant has asthma but is otherwise physically and mentally fit.  He has no vice habits, nor has he ever been a member of any triad society.  He described himself as an introvert with low self‑esteem, not good at mingling, and until the age of 30, he had no sexual or dating experience.  Defence counsels told me that Defendant describes himself not a pedophile.  However, this assertion has now been overturned by the psychologist’s clinical impression.

31.  According to Defendant, he committed the present offences out of pressure from work during the period of March to April 2024, as he was assigned an unbearable amount of work during that period.  In respect of Charge 12 particularly, Defendant met someone on a social app, and out of curiosity, he was brought to and joined a chat group where people would upload child pornography content.

32.  Defendant expressed profound remorse and apologised to the victims, their families, the school, his employer and his family for the harms, impacts and damage caused.  He has fully appreciated that nothing can be an excuse to cause harm to people, particularly the most vulnerable given their ages, when he was entrusted and expected to protect them as an adult.  He is willing to face the legal consequences and has been constantly reflecting on himself since his arrest. He just completed a Hygiene Manager Course in June whilst on remand and I was told he aspired to join the food catering in the future and would not return to the education sector thereby minimizing his contact with young students.

33.  The Defence team submitted mitigation letters from Defendant himself, his father, mother, sister, uncle, aunt‑in‑law, classmate and friend.  These letters all speak of Defendant’s good character, his remorse, and the support of his family.  The friends and relatives express shock and disbelief at his misdeeds and urge the Court to show leniency.

MITIGATING FACTORS ADVANCED

34.  Defence submits the following mitigating factors:

(i) Early guilty plea – Defendant pleaded guilty at the magistracy stage, saving the Court’s time and, most importantly, sparing the young victims and their families the ordeal of giving evidence.

(ii) Detention and reflection – Defendant has been detained for more than two years since his arrest. He has learnt a bitter lesson and has fully reflected on his actions.

(iii) Work pressure and weak law‑abiding sense – Defendant committed the offences due to work pressure and curiosity. The offences took place over a short period (March to April 2024), and he had a clear record.

(iv) Remorse and promise not to re‑offend – Defendant has shown genuine remorse and promised not to offend again. He will seek help from family members when in need.

35.  I have taken all of these matters into account.  The early plea is the most significant mitigating factor.  Defendant’s remorse, as demonstrated by his frank admissions under caution, his mitigation letters, and his family’s support, is also a factor I have considered.  However, these must be weighed against the very serious nature of the offences and the substantial number of victims involved.

SENTENCING PRINCIPLES

36.  The Court of Appeal has set out principles for sentencing sexual offences involving young children in HKSAR v Lee Kwok Wai [2012] 2 HKLRD 239.  These principles apply to indecent assault and buggery.  The Court identified the following relevant factors (paragraph 13):

(i) Age difference between defendant and victim.

(ii) Relationship, including breach of trust.

(iii) Use of threats or inducements.

(iv) Number of occasions and duration.

(v) Violence and harm/discomfort caused.

(vi) Safety measures (e.g. condom use) and health hazards.

(vii) Physical or psychological trauma to the victim.

(viii) Impact on the victim’s family.

(ix) Involvement of others or recording of acts.

(x) Defendant’s psychological condition and likelihood of re‑offending.

37.  In HKSAR v Chow Yuen Fai [2010] 1 HKLRD 354, the Court stressed the need for deterrence, the abhorrence of the public, and that the following aggravating features are relevant: breach of trust, risk of re‑offending, repeated course of conduct, the accused being a sexual predator, poor previous record, physical harm to the victim, keeping a record (photographs/videos), and failure to use a condom (for buggery offences).

38.  In HKSAR vTsang Chiu Tak (CACC 542/2012), the Court of Appeal held that 12 years’ imprisonment was appropriate for rape of a 15‑year‑old by a stepfather, considering the age difference, breach of trust, and lack of safety precautions.

39.  For homosexual buggery with a man under 16 (section 118C(a)), the maximum sentence is life imprisonment.  In Chow Yuen Fai, starting points of 10 years and 8 years were adopted for buggery with boys under 21 where no condom was used.

40.  For indecent assault, the Court of Appeal in Chow Yuen Fai adopted starting points ranging from 3 to 6 years depending on the gravity of the assault.  Oral sex and making of pornography were considered aggravating factors warranting higher starting points.

41.  For attempting to make child pornography, the maximum penalty is the same as for the completed offence.  The Court of Appeal in Secretary for Justice v Man Kwong Choi & Anor [2008] 5 HKLRD 519 classified child pornography into four levels.

42.  For possession of child pornography (section 3(3)), the maximum is 5 years.  In Man Kwong Choi, the guidelines for possession are: Level 1 – fine to 6 months; Level 2 – up to 9 months; Level 3 – 6 to 12 months; Level 4 – 12 to 36 months.  In Chow Yuen Fai, the Court upheld a starting point of 1 year and 8 months for possession.

43.  The Court of Appeal in Chow Yuen Fai also held that the one‑third discount for a timely plea is the high watermark, and only in exceptional cases should a discount of more than one‑third be given.  However, the Court also held that sentences for making child pornography should run concurrently with the offences to which they relate, to avoid double counting.

SENTENCING CONSIDERATIONS

44.  I have considered Defendant’s background, the extensive mitigation advanced, the sentencing principles, and the aggravating factors specific to this case.  The psychological reports demonstrate the different impacts on the three victims.  Y suffered the most serious harm – not only the trauma of buggery but also the grooming and the high risk of avoidance‑related psychological consequences.  X has developed increased vigilance towards adult males.  Z appears to have been minimally affected, but that does not reduce the culpability of the Defendant.

45.  Defendant occupied a position of trust as a school IT technician.  He exploited his access to the Station and his authority over the students.  He used grooming techniques to gain Y’s compliance.  The abuse escalated from touching to buggery.  He attempted to photograph many of the acts and also possessed a large collection of child pornography (876 photos and 8 videos, some depicting very serious abuse).  He did not use a condom during the buggery, exposing Y to the risk of STDs and HIV – a particularly serious aggravating feature.  This is a case of repeated course of conduct involving multiple victims, all of whom were very young and vulnerable.

46.  I have noted the Defence’s submission that Defendant had no sexual experience before, describes himself not a pedophile, and committed the offences out of work pressure and curiosity.  I also note that no inducements or threats were used.  However, I cannot accept these matters as significant mitigation.  Defendant was 28 years old at the time of the offences, working in a position of trust at a primary school.  He knew, or ought to have known, that his actions were seriously wrong. The fact that he acted out of “pressure” or “curiosity” does not excuse his conduct.  It is precisely because he was an adult in a position of trust that his actions are so reprehensible.  His latest psychological assessment also confirms that his condition warrants a diagnosis of Pedophilic Disorder at the time of the offences and his risk of re-offending is high.  

GROUPING OF THE CHARGES

47.  I divide the twelve charges into four groups:

· Group 1 – Homosexual buggery with a man under 16 (Charge 8) – the most serious offence.

· Group 2 – Indecent assault charges (Charges 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 11) – seven charges against X, Y and Z.

· Group 3 – Attempting to make child pornography (Charges 4, 7, 10) – three attempts against Y.

· Group 4 – Possession of child pornography (Charge 12) – the large collection from the seized devices.

Group 1 – Homosexual buggery with a man under 16 (Charge 8)

48.  Defendant inserted his penis into the anus of a 10‑year‑old boy under his care.  The act lasted 15 minutes.  Y felt pain and asked the Defendant to hurry up, but Defendant continued.  Lubricant was used, showing premeditation.  No condom was used.  Defendant ejaculated on Y’s abdomen.  This is a grave violation of trust and a serious sexual offence against a young child.

49.  Applying Chow Yuen Fai (starting points of 10 and 8 years for buggery with under-21 boys) and considering the aggravating factors (breach of trust, grooming, young age of victim, no condom, pain suffered by Y, and the fact that Y was only 10 years old), I adopt a starting point of 12 years and 6 months’ imprisonment for Charge 8.

Group 2 – Indecent assault charges (Charges 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 11)

50.  The indecent assaults against X, Y and Z involved touching of the victims’ penises, in many cases repeated.  The aggravating features (breach of trust, young age, multiple occasions) apply.  The assault on X (Charge 11) was more intrusive (molesting both penis and testicles, lasting 9 minutes).  The assaults on Y (Charges 1, 2, 3, 6, 9) were repeated over several occasions, some involving pain.  The assault on Z (Charge 5) was less intrusive (over the pants, lasting about 1 second).

51.  I have considered the Defence’s submission that the starting points in Chow Yuen Fai (i.e. 3 years for less serious indecent assaults, 6 years for assaults involving oral sex and making of pornography) provide guidance.  In the present case, none of the indecent assaults involved oral sex, but they did involve repeated touching of private parts on many occasions, with some involving pain.  Defendant also attempted to photograph Y’s penis on separate occasions.

52.  For the indecent assault charges, I adopt the following starting points:

· Charge 11 (against X – molesting penis and testicles, lasting 9 minutes, with phone pointed at private parts): 4 years’ imprisonment.

· Charges 1, 2, 3, 6, 9 (against Y – repeated touching of penis, some involving pain, multiple occasions): 3 years and 6 months’ imprisonment each.

· Charge 5 (against Z – touching over pants, lasting 1 second): 2 years’ imprisonment.

I order that all these sentences run concurrently with each other, as they are part of a single course of conduct against the victims, and to avoid a crushing sentence.

Group 3 – Attempting to make child pornography (Charges 4, 7, 10)

53.  These attempts involved Defendant taking photographs of Y’s penis, but the images were either blurred or deleted.  The intended images would have depicted non‑penetrative sexual activity between an adult and a child – Level 3 under Man Kwong Choi. For a completed offence of making Level 3 child pornography, a starting point of 2 to 2½ years might be appropriate.

54.  I adopt a starting point of 18 months’ imprisonment for each of Charges 4, 7 and 10.  I order that these sentences run concurrently with each other and concurrently with the indecent assault sentences for Y (to avoid double counting, as the attempts were part of the same course of conduct).

Group 4 – Possession of child pornography (Charge 12)

55.  Defendant possessed 876 photographs and 8 video clips.  Of these:

· 96.61% were photographs, classified as Level 1 (erotic posing).

· 86.76% depicted children aged 6‑11, and 98.7% of those were Level 1.

· 13.24% depicted children aged 11‑16, and 82.91% of those were Level 1.

56.  However, the remaining materials (1.81% of the total) contained serious features: penetration without condoms, anal sex, insertion of hard objects, children crying or looking distressed, and multiple children.  These fall within Level 3 or Level 4 under Man Kwong Choi.

57.  For possession of Level 4 images, the guidelines range from 12 to 36 months.  For a collection of this size (876 photos and 8 videos), even if the majority are Level 1, the sheer number and the presence of Level 3/4 materials warrant a substantial sentence.

58.  I also note the Defence’s submission that Defendant joined a chat group out of curiosity.  However, possession of such a large collection of child pornography is not a passive act and this is not a valid excuse for the offence.  

59.  In Chow Yuen Fai, the Court upheld a starting point of 1 year and 8 months for possession of child pornography.  In the present case, the quantity is much larger and the materials more serious.  I adopt a starting point of 27 months’ imprisonment (2 years and 3 months) for Charge 12.

60.  I order that this sentence run concurrently with the other sentences.  As held in Chow Yuen Fai, while in other circumstances a part of the sentence for possession ought to be served consecutively, given the totality of the sentence, it is appropriate to order concurrency to avoid a crushing sentence.

DISCOUNT FOR GUILTY PLEA

61.  Defendant pleaded guilty at the magistracy stage.  He is entitled to a full one‑third discount on each starting point.  I am not persuaded that this is an exceptional case warranting a discount of more than one‑third.  The early plea has been fully accounted for.

TOTALITY AND CONSECUTIVE/CONCURRENT ORDERS

62.  Applying the one‑third discount:

· Charge 8 (buggery): 12 years and 6 months × 2/3 = 8 years and 4 months.

· Charge 11 (X indecent assault): 4 years × 2/3 = 2 years and 8 months.

· Charges 1, 2, 3, 6, 9 (Y indecent assaults): 3.5 years × 2/3 = 2 years and 4 months each.

· Charge 5 (Z indecent assault): 2 years × 2/3 = 16 months.

· Charges 4, 7, 10 (attempting to make child pornography): 18 months × 2/3 = 1 year each.

· Charge 12 (possession of child pornography): 27 months × 2/3 = 18 months.

63.  The offences were committed against three separate victims.  The buggery on Y is of a different order of seriousness.  I order:

· All indecent assault sentences (Group 2) to run concurrently with each other.

· The attempting to make child pornography (for Y) sentences (Group 3) to run concurrently with each other and concurrently with the indecent assault sentences for Y.

· The possession of child pornography sentence (Group 4) to run concurrently with the other sentences.

· The buggery sentence (Group 1, Charge 8) to run consecutively to the sentences for the other offences.

64.  Based on the above, I impose a total term of 11 years’ imprisonment.  This is arrived at by taking the buggery sentence of 8 years and 4 months and adding a consecutive term of 2 years and 8 months (Charge 11) for the remaining offences.

CONCLUSION

65.  Defendant, a trusted adult in a primary school, systematically preyed on three young boys.  He groomed Y, touched all three boys’ private parts repeatedly, attempted to photograph Y’s penis, and subjected Y to the horror of anal intercourse without a condom.  He also possessed a huge collection of child pornography.  The psychological harm to Y may not yet be fully apparent given his avoidance response.

66.  The sentence I impose must denounce such conduct, deter others in positions of trust, and protect vulnerable children.  The early guilty plea and Defendant’s remorse have been fully reflected.  The total sentence of 11 years’ imprisonment of these twelves charges is, in my judgment, fair, just and proportionate.

ORDER

67.  Accordingly, Defendant is sentenced to 11 years’ imprisonment for all twelve charges.