A 20-year sentence handed down to a man for the violent sexual assault of a 76-year-old woman was criticised in Appeals Court yesterday as ?manifestly harsh and excessive?.

Raymond Maxwell Perott, 38, was sentenced in June to 12 years for the sexual assault and eight years for burglary by Assistant Justice Archibald Warner, who described the offence as a ?brutal and horrendous home invasion of a helpless elderly woman?.

However, defence lawyer Craig Attridge contended that, while the custodial term for the sexual assault was ?justifiable?, the burglary of $200 from the woman?s bedroom was not of its kind ?a particularly serious offence?.

He said also that the sentences should run concurrently ? an argument which was rejected by the original Supreme Court ruling.

?I am not for a second trying to belittle the horror of the ordeal,? he said.

?But my concern is that the judge looked at the case, said ?oh this is terrible?, and applied the aggravating circumstances to both offences.?

Referring to a number of precedents laid down by similar cases in the UK, defence counsel said a more appropriate sentence would have been between 14 and 16 years, with the sentence for burglary reduced to four years ? assuming the Appeals Court did not accept his earlier submission that the two sentences should run concurrently.

Mr. Attridge alluded to Assistant Justice Warner?s apparent disgruntlement with the Crown?s decision to accept a lesser charge of sexual assault instead of the original charge of serious sexual assault ? a mood which, Mr. Attridge suggested, may have persuaded him to ?unnecessarily increase? the sentence for burglary.

Responding for the Crown, Director of Public Prosecutions Vinette Graham-Allen rejected the argument that the two offences should be looked at in isolation and pointed out that the sentence of eight years for burglary was within the ten year maximum which can be applied.

Ms Graham-Allen said that the applicant?s use of violence and the resulting trauma endured by the elderly lady added gravity to the burglary conviction.

?I submit that given the horrendous circumstances of the case, the learned judge was correct to take account of the seriousness of both offences.?

In 2002, Perott gained entry to the woman?s bedroom whilst she was resting and her husband was watching television in another part of the house.

Slamming a pillow over her head with such force it broke the lady?s glasses, Perrot continually threatened to kill her whilst demanding money for his cocaine habit.

But despite handing over $200 from her dressing table, Perrot then repeatedly tried to rape her as she struggled and begged for mercy.

A multiple offender, Perrot has convictions dating back to the mid-1980s for house breaking, unlawful assault on women as well as two consecutive nine-month prison sentences in 1990 for having unlawful carnal knowledge of girls under 14.

In the Supreme Court trial, Mr. Attridge described Perott as a ?seriously damaged? individual, grappling with the trauma of physical and sexual abuse at the hands of his various members of his family as well as foster families which began when he was three years old.

A judgment is expected next week.