- 4 Further it was of such an extreme nature that it was seen as likely to have caused physical and or psychological harm to the youngsters involved. It must also be said that most if not all of these young persons had no ability to control what had happened to them. … they were the victims of uncaring and ruthless exploitation.” Those comments are, in my view, succinct and accurate. 13. Counsel for the appellant further argued that the facts of the present case are distinguishable from those in HKSAR v. Hiroyuki Takeda HCMA315/1998. Mr Recorder Ching Y. Wong, S.C., in that case, was dealing with an offence pursuant to the same provisions as the present case where the facts involved photographs dealing with child pornography and necrophilia. In his judgment, there was nothing excessive or wrong in principle with the starting point of sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment for a first offender. 14. He said : “ In this case, I am totally satisfied that a deterrent both in personam and in rem are justified. The court must discharge its duty and bring home loudly and clearly to the Appellant and the public that such or similar behaviour will not be tolerated and that those who do transgress will be dealt with severely and without mercy. In all the circumstances, nothing said on the Appellant’s behalf or about the case has caused me the slightest hesitation that the starting point of 30 months and the concurrent terms of 21 months passed by the learned Magistrate was anything but proper.” With those sentiments, I agree.