A man convicted of sexual offences against a child sought to appeal his 16-year sentence as excessive during a Court of Appeal hearing yesterday.

Maleke Martin was convicted in 2022 of two counts of sexual exploitation of a young person by a person in a position of trust and one count of showing offensive material to a child.

He was subsequently sentenced to imprisonment for 13½ years, 16 years and six years respectively, to run concurrently for a total of 16 years, with that sentence to be followed by a supervision order.

However, he requested permission to appeal his sentence, arguing that the term was disproportionately harsh compared with other cases and that the judge had considered factors that she should not have.

The Supreme Court heard during his trial that Martin moved in with the victim’s family, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, in August 2020.

In October that year, the victim told her grandmother that Martin had showed her an inappropriate video and had her perform lewd acts.

A police investigation into the allegations was launched and Martin was arrested and charged in March 2021.

Martin denied all the charges but was found guilty on all counts by a jury in December 2022.

His 16-year sentence came with a requirement to serve at least eight years before becoming eligible for parole.

The sentence was ordered to be followed by a 15-year supervision order, with Martin placed on the sex offenders registry.

Elizabeth Christopher, for Martin, argued that the sentence was excessive and that a sentence of between four and seven years would be more appropriate in the circumstances.

She told the Court of Appeal that Puisne Judge Shade Subair Williams had wrongly interpreted evidence before the court to suggest that Martin had groomed the child victim.

Ms Christopher said: “If you are going to say there was grooming, you should be able to show some evidence of grooming.

“The court should ask itself if it was an unreasonable inference for the court to have made.”

Ms Christopher said there was no evidence to suggest that Martin encouraged the child to sleep in his bed with him, although the court heard that she had done so with the knowledge of her mother.

She also said that while Martin accepted that he had seen the child undressed, it was not unusual when sharing a home with a child and there was no evidence to suggest that he “took advantage”.

Ms Christopher argued that Martin was given an “extraordinary” sentence and that there was nothing to support a 15-year supervision order after his period of incarceration.

However, Cindy Clarke, the Director of Public Prosecutions, called on the court to dismiss the application for leave, noting that legislators had increased penalties for sexual offences to reflect public sentiment.

Ms Clarke added that the court would be wrong to shorten the sentence because “undue leniency” was given in another case.

She said that Mrs Justice Subair Williams had considered precedents in the case when determining a starting point of 14 to 17 years for the offence and that the level of trust the victim’s family had in Martin had been an aggravating factor.

Ms Clarke said: “There are different roles a position of trust can take. The court must consider what level of trust was placed in the applicant.”

She also noted a report that found there was a “moderate” risk of Martin reoffending and recommended that a supervision order should be attached to imprisonment.

Ms Clarke added that Martin would be able to apply to have the length of the supervision order reduced if his circumstances merited it.

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