Where an older man made contact with young girls through internet chat rooms leading to sexual offences against the girls, sentences would be at the top end of the range.Application by the Attorney-General under s.36 Criminal Justice Act 1988 to refer to the court the sentence of ('W'), who admitted a number of offences of unlawful sexual intercourse with young girls and indecent assault upon them, on the ground that the sentence imposed was unduly lenient. The offender ('W') was aged 34 or 35 when the offences occurred. He admitted three offences of unlawful sexual intercourse with the first girl ('K') who was then aged 13 and three offences of indecent assault. W admitted two offences of unlawful sexual intercourse with a second girl ('C') who was also 13 at the time and three offences of indecent assault. W had made contact with the girls via an internet chat room. He lied about his age. W was sentenced at the Crown Court to an extended sentence of five years under s.85 Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 comprising a custodial term of three years' imprisonment and an extension of two years to the period during which he would be under licence. The custodial period was made up of two periods of 18 months, one in respect of each girl, to run consecutively. The 18 months was made up of 15 months' imprisonment for each of the unlawful sexual intercourse offences to run concurrently and three months for each of the indecent assault offence to run concurrently with one another and consecutively to the 15 month sentences. The maximum sentence for an offence of unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl aged between 13 and 16 was two years' imprisonment under the Sexual Offences Act 1956. The maximum sentence for indecent assault was 10 years. The Attorney-General submitted that the sentence failed to reflect the culpability of the offender who had deliberately groomed the two vulnerable young girls and enticed them towards intercourse.HELD: (1) As the court made clear in R v Figg (2003) EWCA Crim 2751, R v Hinton 1995 16 CAR(S) 523 was not authority for the proposition that the court had to restrict its sentence for indecent assault to the maximum for unlawful sexual intercourse. (2) The sentence was unduly lenient. The proper sentence for each offence of unlawful sexual intercourse was 18 months (to run concurrently) rather than 15 months. Where an older man made contact with young girls through internet chat rooms leading to sexual offences against the girls, sentences would be at the top end of the range. W knew before the offences were committed that he was dealing with a girl who was significantly under age. (3) The three month sentences for the indecent assaults were too short for the offences. The sentences for each indecent assault should have been 12 months (to run concurrently) instead of three months, except in the case of an assault with a particularly aggravating feature which should have been marked with a longer sentence of 18 months. (4) The judge was right to make the sentences for the unlawful intercourse and the assaults, and the sentences in respect of each girl, run consecutively. (5) The sentence of imprisonment which should have been imposed was five and a half years rather than three years. That sentence would be discounted to four and a half years to reflect the fact that W had had to go through the sentencing process twice. (6) The period of the extension of the licence should be increased from two to two and a half years.Granting leave and extending W's sentence from five to seven years.