14-year-old girl was not charged with rape.

Appeal Court President Sir James Astwood said the facts outlined in the girl's statement were so serious as to allege that Shawn Eugene Gordon Smith had raped her.

Smith, 29, of Sandys Parish, who had intercourse with the girl, was jailed for 18 months in July after pleading guilty to having unlawful carnal knowledge of the teenager.

Appeals Court slams plea of sex offender Crown counsel Patrick Doherty appeared before Sir James and fellow Appeal Court judges Sir Derek Cons and Philip Clough to urge them to increase the sentence on the grounds that it is manifestly lenient.

In her statement, the girl said Smith climbed into her garden as she was collecting washing and had sex with her.

She said Smith held her against a wall and forced himself upon her. She said she told Smith her father was coming home and that he was sick, but that he still pulled her pants down and had intercourse with her.

Mr. Doherty said the girl, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was hospitalised for five days for depression, underwent four months of psychiatric treatment, and was diagnosed as having traumatic stress syndrome.

The Crown accepted Smith's guilty plea to having unlawful carnal knowledge of the girl.

Sir James said: "That is a serious summary. Why did you accept that plea? If this is correct, that is rape, taking a woman against her consent. Someone gave evidence and you didn't proceed?'' Fellow Appeal Court Judge Sir Derek Cons said:"You are asking the court to sentence on the basis of rape.'' He added: "If the facts substantiate sexual assault, the Crown should prosecute.'' Sir James continued: "The judge should not have accepted that plea. How could the judge then accept this as unlawful carnal knowledge? If that summary was put to the court, the plea should not have been accepted.'' Mr. Doherty, who was not Crown counsel in the original case, said it was not clear what facts the judge had been using to sentence Smith.

Mr. Justice Clough said the trial judge had made a reference to the law being in place to "protect women from themselves''. He asked: "Isn't that accepting consent?'' Mr. Doherty accepted that Crown counsel in the case were "not entirely blameless'' but he said the defence had an obligation to make it clear they disputed the facts.

He argued the judge did not give adequate weight to the trauma suffered by the victim and to the "predatory nature of the offence''. He said Smith, a father of three, had a previous conviction for assault causing bodily harm to a woman.

"There was no remorse expressed by the defendant,'' he said.

"The pre-trial report shows he did not appreciate the gravity of the offence.

When confronted about the effect it may have caused the victim, he says she may have had some predisposition, rather than expressing remorse for his unlawful conduct.'' Smith's lawyer Richard Horseman said: "The Crown is asking you to increase sentence on the basis that he committed a sexual assault.

"The Crown elected not to proceed with a sexual assault and accepted a plea (to unlawful carnal knowledge).

"The inference must be that they accepted the defence version of events, namely that this was a consensual act and this is how the case must have been put to the judge.'' He noted that the Crown had asked for a sentence of not less than two years.

"No Crown counsel would put forward a sentence of two years on the basis that it was a predatorial, non-consensual act. An offence of that nature would warrant six to ten years.''