(ii) the need to deter others; (iii) the number of people who saw the material; and. (iv) the consequences of them having seen it. The Court also commented that in comparing individual cases it had to be borne in mind that each one will depend on the particular factual matrix. The Court concluded that the sentence of 3 years 4 months imposed by the trial judge was not manifestly excessive, although the Court did comment that the sentence was severe and towards the top end of the expected range. 21. We have also had regard to the case of R v Burns [2017] EWCA Crim 1466. The appellant in that case was a member of National Action, a far-right supremacist group, and was an avowed racist. Between August and September 2014, when he was aged 20, he posted a series of virulently racist updates, comments and links to a Facebook account he operated under an alias. Those posts gave rise to count 1. The comments contained many vile and deeply offensive remarks directed at, in particular, the Jewish and Afro-Carribean communities. The gist of the messages was to promote militant action against them, with the aim that they should be eliminated, with a view to protecting what the applicant described as "an advanced warrior race consisting of white men and women". Recovered from electronic media belonging to the appellant were e-books expressing extreme anti-Semitic views and extolling Adolf Hitler as "the ultimate being". The Facebook account had 98 "friends", some (but not all) of whom appeared to be located overseas. However, the account was not locked and so could be readily accessed by any user on the internet. Count 2 related to a speech made by the appellant on 23 May 2015, whilst he was aged 21 and on bail for the offence charged in the first count. During a demonstration staged outside the United States Embassy, the appellant spoke, using highly inflammatory language directed towards non-white immigrants and Jews. He alleged that the former were "rapists, robbers and murderers" and that the latter were "parasites and bankers" who wanted to create what he termed a "mongrelised" race. The speech was filmed. The appellant subsequently indicated in an online post that he knew the video was to be posted on YouTube, which indeed it was. 22. The judge at first instance sentenced the appellant to 4 years' imprisonment. The Court, on appeal, reduced the sentence to 2 years 6 months, referring to the facts of Bonehill-Paine and Whittle & Sheppard in the course of the judgment as well as making reference to the youth of that particular appellant. 23. Discussion 24. The tweets that the appellant published were of an utterly vile nature. No right-thinking person could consider them to be anything other than abhorrent. The publication of this kind of material is corrosive to our society and highly damaging. SMITH BERNAL WORDWAVE