A 43-year-old man who pleaded guilty earlier this year to buggery and sexual exploitation of a boy was given too harsh a sentence, Saul Froomkin, Q.C. argued before Bermuda's Court of Appeal yesterday.

In front of a packed court room at the Supreme Court, Mr. Froomkin argued the ten-year sentence the sex offender received was “too Draconian”, in excess even of what the Crown had recommended.

On March 19, 2002 the court heard how the man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, befriended the 13-year-old boy after becoming his employer. According to a summary of evidence read into the record, the man dined with the victim's family several times before he lured the youngster to his apartment.

It was revealed that the man performed oral sex on the victim at their place of employment and, on one occasion, the boy performed anal sex on the man.

“The boy was an acknowledged homosexual who, at all times, was a willing, if not eager participant. There was no force or threat of violence by the appellant. No complaints were made by the victim,” Mr. Froomkin argued yesterday before the three-judge panel

At the sentencing, Crown counsel Cindy Clarke said that the authorities were alerted of the incident when a school counsellor reported it.

“The boy was talking about it at school with some girlfriends,” said the lawyer.

Mr. Froomkin said that could not understand why the man received such a harsh sentence from Supreme Court judge, Assistant Justice Archibald Warner, considering the man expressed remorse, gave full cooperation to the Police and apologised for his actions, said Mr. Froomkin.

“He was given ten years, although the Crown had recommended that he receive a four or five-year term. Mr. Warner failed to take mitigating factors in account. He did not genuinely take them into consideration.”

Mr. Froomkin cited several cases where perpetrators who committed serious sex assaults and similar acts received significantly shorter sentences - some as short as 18 months.

The lawyer asked the Appeals panel not to “short-change” his client.

Arguing against the appeal, Crown counsel Graveney Bannister said the sentence handed down was not excessive. He said the victim had been exploited and confused.

President of the Appeals Court, Sir James Astwood responded: “Confused? He had several sexual relationships with other males. Confused about what?”

“Do you have any authority to show where his sentence his justifiable? ” asked the judge. “It seems like this sentence is out of proportion. The sentence was even contrary to what you people put to the judge.”

Mr. Bannister responded: “Ten years is justifiable.”

Sir James asked, “He gave a guilty plea and was still punished as if it was a worst-case scenario.”

The judge told the prosecutor: “I don't understand how the Crown makes a submission, the judge goes against it, and you are appealing the contrary ruling?”

Mr. Bannister responded that maybe Mr. Justice Warner added his own considerations.

When Sir James questioned whether the Crown was now arguing that prosecutor of the day, Ms Clarke, did not adequately present her submissions, Mr. Bannister responded: “I would not go that far.”

A judgment is expected soon.