A lawyer's argument that an admitted child molester had a minimal risk of re-offending fell on deaf ears after a Supreme Court judge sentenced a 35-year-old man to four years in prison yesterday.

And Acting Justice Charles-Etta Simmons told the man's lawyer, Sen. Mark Pettingill, that she had a duty to protect the rights of young children who were preyed upon by child molesters.

The accused man, from Sandys Parish, cannot be named for legal reasons.

He pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting and sexually exploiting his 13-year-old stepdaughter between August 1, and November 1, 2000.

Crown counsel Cindy Clarke asked for a sentence of four to five years be given for the offences, which carry a maximum of prison sentence of 20 years.

She explained to Mrs. Justice Simmons that the young girl was sexually abused and verbally tortured by the defendant on several occasions.

Over several months in 2000 he admitted licking around her private area, grabbing her crotch and grabbing her breasts causing bruising to them.

He also threatened that if she told anyone about the incidents, he would send her back to her native country.

Ms Clarke explained that it was only under pressure from the girl's mother that he admitted to preying on the young teen.

And in the first ever reading of a victim impact statement in Supreme Court, Mrs. Justice Simmons heard disturbing testimony from the young victim, who said that she had been severely traumatised by the abuse.

She said that she tried on numerous occasions to hurt herself - by hitting her head against large objects and scratching her face.

Ms Clarke said: “We must promote respect for the law by upholding a just society. This court has an overriding, instrumental function to protect children from this kind of violence. Sex abuse of minors has received intense public interest - in 2000 and 2001, there were 26 indictments filed in this court for offences of sexual abuse. The sentence must be proportionate to the offence. The Crown is asking for four to five years imprisonment.”

In the man's defence, Sen. Pettingill said that his client had problems with alcohol and pleaded guilty at the first opportunity.

And he argued that, because of intense counselling that the man had been receiving since the time of the incident and the fact there were no previous convictions for similar offences, he had a minimal risk of re-offending.

“He confessed to the child's mother - had he not taken that course this could have gone on undetected,” Sen. Pettingill said. “His cry for help is a reflection of his guilt and remorse. He is extremely remorseful for his actions. He falls in the category of being a child molester, but not a paedophile - I don't think that the public has a need to be concerned about re-offending.”

However, Mrs. Justice Simmons was not swayed by the argument, saying: “The offences you have committed are very serious. Young children are easy targets - what has aggravated this assault is that you were in the position of a parent and a position of trust. But I am especially struck by the victim's physical and emotional abuse. This kind of conduct must be discouraged and society must be protected.”

Mrs. Justice Simmons sentenced the molester to four years in prison on each count, with the sentences to run concurrently.

She also ordered that the offender be enrolled in special treatment for alcohol abuse, child sex abuse and his bouts of depression.