12 As to this observation, I note in passing that one of the grounds of appeal is to the effect that his Honour erred in failing to fix individual terms for each offence before considering concurrency and totality, as required by the observations in Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610 at [45], and that it is further submitted by the Crown that his Honour was in error in making all four terms run concurrently. However, as to these submissions it seems to me clear enough from the transcript of the sentencing submissions that it was always the submission of the Crown that a sentence of approximately 6 to 8 years in total, for all of the four offences, cumulative upon the terms which Roberts was already serving, was the appropriate sentence. That emerges, for example, from the exchange at p 30 of the DPP's appeal book. If his Honour was in error in the way in which he came to approach the manner of fixing the sentence and considerations of totality and concurrency, it was an approach positively invited by the way in which the Crown submissions were put. In any event, it also appears that the principal thrust of the Crown appeal is not as to the way in which his Honour went about fixing the terms, but is as to the alleged leniency of the terms themselves. It is in my view therefore appropriate that this Court focus on that issue alone, in relation to the Crown appeal.