[2025] EWCA Crim 1467

In concise and clear submissions that were none the worse for being delicately expressed Mr Gadd, who appeared for the offender in the court below, submits that the sentence passed by the judge was within the appropriate range and was not unduly lenient. He submits that this was not a case of specific targeting of a particularly vulnerablevictim and that the judge found no evidence that the offender had targeted her because of her vulnerability. That part of his submission we can accept. He submits further that the judge gave appropriate weight to the significance of ejaculation in this case and also to the offender's relatively good character and absence of recent or similar convictions; and he referred to the offender's family background, which is unexceptional. He emphasises that at the outset the offender's dealings with V were not suspect, and that he helped her in numerous ways before the move to sexual offending took place. He submitted that the sentence as structured by the judge included a sufficient uplift by the imposition of the additional 2 years in respect of counts 2, 3 and 4. Because these offences though serious were at the lower end of the scale, ultimately his submission was that this was an aggregate sentence that the judge was entitled to pass.