33 I differ from the conclusion reached by the learned Chief Justice and would impose a substituted sentence of four years. The youths, although vulnerable in some respects, were each aged over 16 years. Except for the incident involving the shaving of the pubes, the misconduct was consensual although doubtless facilitated by the provision of alcohol and marihuana. The period of misconduct was over six months, not many years. The conviction for soliciting in 1982 is relevant but carries little weight and the conviction recorded in February 2004 relating to possession of proscribed material in May 2003, also relevant, cannot be treated as a prior conviction. Material prepared for another purpose suggests the appellant to be himself sexually damaged. Treatment, diversion and future control must be considered alongside retribution. The conduct here is, in my opinion, far less reprehensible and prolonged than that considered in M and the harm caused to the victims, fortunately, not as great. My reasons for preferring a sentence less than that proposed by the learned Chief Justice is to attempt proportionality, leaving longer sentences for cases concerning a different range of behaviour rather than altering the range of penalties for the more serious matters upwards through comparison. Examination of the range of penalties imposed in the years 2000 to 2004 already demonstrate an upward movement, but cases not dissimilar to this nevertheless show a range of 3 - 4 years' imprisonment with varying periods of suspension or non-parole periods to accommodate subjective characteristics of the offender. Further, despite current perceptions, the fixing of a minimum non-parole period does not necessarily permit release upon the completion of one-half of the sentence. Parole permits consideration of change and public safety at a future time with the benefit of an examination of post-sentence conduct and examination. The Parole Board ought be trusted to fulfil its responsibilities required by Parliament.