A man convicted of unlawful carnal knowledge of a 14-year-old has lost an appeal in which he claimed he should have been charged with sexual assault.

Aaron O’Connor, who was 20 at the time of the offence, argued before the Court of Appeal that had he been charged with the latter offence, he would have been able to present the defence that he believed the victim was over 16 — something available to defendants between 18 and 21 years old in sexual assault cases but not unlawful carnal knowledge cases.

Both offences carry a 20-year maximum sentence.

According to a judgment by Court of Appeal president Justice Sir Scott Baker, O’Connor first approached the victim in early 2014 as she walked to school in her uniform. During that conversation, they exchanged names and she allegedly told him her age. While she refused to give him her phone number, they began to communicate on Skype and WhatsApp.

“Many of the appellant’s messages were sexually and emotionally manipulative with a view of luring her into a situation in which he could have sex with her,” the judgment states. “He asked her to send photographs of herself to him, which she did on more than one occasion. He threatened to put these on Facebook if she did not meet his sexual requests.”

He did eventually have sex with the victim, who subsequently told her parents, leading to the police being contacted.

While the court found that there was considerable evidence that the victim did not consent to the sex, and could not due to her age, prosecutors accepted a plea to the charge of unlawful carnal knowledge rather than sexual assault after speaking with the victim and her family.

However, defence lawyer Craig Attridge argued that it was an abuse of process to charge the defendant with unlawful carnal knowledge as it denied him a defence possible under a charge of sexual assault. At that time, Acting Justice Charlene Scott found that the prosecutors could put forward what charges it felt best suited the case and found no ulterior motive.

O’Connor was subsequently sentenced to a year in prison, but he launched an appeal against his conviction.

The Court of Appeal judgment, dated November 20, concluded: “The offence of unlawful carnal knowledge can cover a variety of different states of mind on the part of the complaint, from active encouragement on one hand, through reluctant acquiescence to forcibly expressed refusal on the other. The offence exists for the protection of girls under 16 and it is trite law that the level of penalty is dependant on the particular circumstances of the case.

“The appellant could be said to have been fortunate that the prosecution agreed to accept his plea of guilty on a basis more favourable to him than some of the prosecution evidence suggested. The core of his argument is that he should have been prosecuted for sexual assault rather than unlawful carnal knowledge.

“Had that been the case, there would not have been a plea of guilty. [The victim] would have given evidence and the appellant would have faced the real risk of conviction on a factual basis far more serious than that on which he pleaded guilty.

“Further, the prospect of his establishing a defence under Section 190 seems to me remote.

“In my judgment he has suffered no injustice, the prosecutor acted lawfully and I would dismiss the appeal as Acting Justice Scott came to the correct conclusion.”

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding criminal court cases. As we are legally liable for any slanderous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers.