The counsel for the respondent deemed that the six-year sentence was lenient but not disproportionate. 

The Crown argued that the trial judge did not fully consider the seriousness of the respondents’ actions and harm caused to the first complainer.

The complainer had claimed that the encounters were consensual and noted his young age at the time of the first offences.

The appeal, led by Lord Docherty, acknowledged the serious nature of the second set of charges, particularly involving a pregnant victim.

It was concluded that an appropriate sentence should be nine years, reflecting both the severity of the offences and comparisons to similar cases. 

The court allowed the appeal and increased the sentence accordingly.