restaurant robber increased.

Crown Counsel Mr. Brian Calhoun said the sentence imposed by Puisne Judge the Hon. Mr. Justice Ward on 23-year-old Keith Trott was "manifestly inadequate'' when one considers the circumstances of the case.

Trott, of Smith's Parish, held up the Rickshaw Restaurant around 10 p.m. on February 3.

Wielding a 91 -inch switch blade and wearing a handkerchief over his lower face, Trott entered the restaurant and snatched anywhere from $130 to $600 from the cash register, the court heard.

Trott, who was arrested days later, told Police he robbed the restaurant to support his craving for drugs.

He said he took the knife to scare the people in the restaurant so they would not try to stop him from taking the money.

But Mr. Calhoun said it was fortunate that no one was hurt.

He said armed robbery with a weapon, other than a gun, generally carries a sentence of five to seven years. And he added this should not be departed from unless there are "appropriate reasons''.

Trott's case was similar to Randolph Lightbourne's, Mr. Calhoun said.

Lightbourne received seven years for robbing security guards with an offensive weapon.

Mr. Calhoun said in both cases the offenders wore a disguise and were armed with weapons for the same purpose -- to scare away anybody who tried to stop them from getting the money.

Mr. Calhoun also argued that Trott's admission that he had a drug problem was not a mitigating factor.

He said the sentence, which is the only thing the public is concerned about, is no deterrence to robbers.

But Mr. Tim Marshall, for Trott, said: "The greatest protection for the public is a sentence that results in the reform of the offender so he returns to society and leads a constructive life''.

"Because whatever the sentence,'' he added, "the offender will come out. We need to ensure that he is no longer a threat to the community.'' Mr. Marshall said while Trott's sentence may not be the normal, that does not mean it is manifestly inadequate.

There are a number of factors the judge has to take into consideration, he said, including deterrence, prevention and rehabilitation.

"It is obvious that the learned judge exercised and structured the sentence around rehabilitation,'' Mr. Marshall said.

"He did not do this in a vacuum. He was clearly aware of what the normal (sentence) range (for the offence) was. But he felt this individual, considering the circumstances, was worth a calculated risk or a low sentence.'' Mr. Marshall said Mr. Ward took the risk based on several factors, including Trott's guilty plea and confession -- particularly his recognition that he had a drug problem and needed help.

"Even though he had the opportunity of bail he never exercised that right from the time of his arrest to the point of being sentenced,'' Mr. Marshall said.

"He said it was better for him to be kept in Casemates. This guy was actually trying to do something about his unacceptable behaviour.'' Mr. Marshall also said Trott received "positive recognition for early release'' by the Bermuda Parole Board two weeks ago.

President of the Court of Appeal the Hon. Sir Denys Roberts said: "There is no doubt that in ordinary circumstances the robbery of a store late at night would be considered a serious matter by the courts.

"The judge appears to have misdirected in one aspect. He seems to have placed it (the offence) in the lower (sentencing) range. If he was talking about robberies as a whole, he would be correct. But if he was talking about aggravating robberies, then the range of five to seven years would be appropriate.'' However, he said, there was no doubt that Mr. Ward had taken into account Trott's age, his "reasonably good'' record and the fact that Trott expressed considerable remorse.

"It may very well be that a longer sentence in normal circumstances is necessary to protect society and act as a deterrence. But simply because we do not wish to be seen to take away the discretion of the judge, the sentence imposed should stay.

"But I stress this is an exceptional case.''