A road rage attacker jailed last week for breaking a motorist's nose and assaulting a security guard has appealed his nine-month sentence.

Eric Kenneth Dunkley, 29, appeared in Magistrates Court yesterday with his lawyer Richard Hector to apply for bail pending the outcome of an appeal hearing.

Dunkley, of Sugar Apple Lane, Pembroke, is appealing against the length of the jail-term on the grounds that Magistrate William Francis did not explain fully to the court why he had opted for prison, instead of alternatives to incarceration.

Mr. Hector said if Dunkley's guilty plea and other mitigating circumstances had been taken into consideration fully, as Mr. Francis said they had been, he would have received a reduction on the maximum sentence by 25 percent, which would have been eight months, not nine.

The defence lawyer told the court that he believed the legislation around alternatives to incarceration needed to be better explained in court, and said he did not believe the guidelines had been followed on this case, which had merit for appeal.

But he said while the appeal was waiting to be heard, his client should be released on bail.

"This is a comparatively short sentence, and if we are successful it may be that the sentence is reduced," said Mr. Hector.

"Normally, you don't get an appeal heard in a month, or two or three months. They take a long time. It's very unlikely that this matter will be heard until next year.

"If my client is released on bail, if the appeal is not granted then my client will serve his time. If he loses his appeal, he is not going anywhere."

And he added: "In my submission, this appeal has merit. It seeks to understand and have some guidance on some new legislation that was passed recently.

"We had no guidance as to how we should apply this new act. They tell you what you should be doing, but they don' tell you how to go about it."

But prosecutor in the case Wayne Caines claimed the grounds for appeal were "frivolous and baseless, and would not be taken seriously by any court."

Mr. Caines argued that Dunkley should not be released on bail pending the appeal because these offences were of a serious nature, and said his character and previous convictions had to be considered.

He said: "There are no exceptional circumstances that make this man eligible at this juncture for bail. It's the Crown's submission that this matter can be dealt with quickly. This (appeal) matter can be dealt with in a month."

Mr. Caines said he had contacted the Supreme Court and been told that the appeal could be heard "post haste".

And he said Mr. Francis had to consider both the accused and the victims in the case.

Mr. Hector responded, asking whether the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions had some kind of "vendetta" against Dunkley, and asked whether prosecutors were attempting to "punish him in any event".

He said: "Why is he pushing so hard when if he loses his appeal he will serve his sentence."

And at that, Acting Senior Crown Counsel Juan Wolffe, who was in the court on another matter, jumped to his feet to demand an apology from Mr. Hector.

He said as Acting Senior Crown Counsel he had to interject and claimed Mr. Hector's comments were "inappropriate and outrageous".

However, Mr. Hector refused to apologise.

Mr. Francis said the whole issue had to be over how quickly an appeal could be heard, and he believed it could be heard by the end of November.

His application for bail was denied.