was not such as merited any significant reduction in sentence. These cases are complex, and the police had to undertake a detailed investigation. Further, the fact that the appellant was unrepresented was a situation entirely of his own choosing and had he wished to be so then he could and would have had legal representation. 33. We have, however, concluded that the length of sentence after a trial that the Recorder identified as being appropriate was simply too long. Appalling though the tweets were, such a sentence is out of line with the cases to which we have referred. Although not guideline cases, and of course each case has to be considered on its own facts, they do give some assistance in respect of offences of this nature. This appellant is unsophisticated and whilst he has a significant record for offending it is for matters of a very different nature. We note in particular the assessment of the probation officer that the appellant is a social recluse leading what is described as a lonely fantasy life via social media. Whilst his outpourings on Twitter are properly to be condemned as utterly reprehensible, the sentence passed by the Recorder is simply too long when examined in the context of the other cases to which we have referred. 34. In our judgment after a trial this offending would have merited a sentence of 4 years. The appellant was entitled to maximum credit for plea and that produces a sentence to 2 years 8 months. Accordingly, the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive and this appeal must be allowed. The sentences of 4 years are quashed and in their place we will substitute ones of 2 years and 8 months on each count concurrent. Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof. 165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Email: Rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk SMITH BERNAL WORDWAVE