A retrial has been ordered by the Court of Appeal in the case against a Sandys Parish man convicted of sexually abusing a young girl.

The court found Magistrate Edward King erred in accepting a medical expert's testimony supporting the victim when that evidence is both inadmissible and not supportive of the charge.

The court -- President Sir James Astwood, Judge Sir Alan Huggins, and Judge Edward Zacca -- found evidence from the doctor that children cannot fantasise about sexual contact unless they have experienced it may have affected Mr.

King's decision.

It was a "miscarriage of justice'' to allow the conviction to stand, the Court said, despite believing Mr. King's finding that the girl was a "witness of truth''.

The man -- who cannot be named for legal reasons -- was released on bail on Wednesday after being in custody for just under 11 months.

Mr. King found him guilty of touching his girlfriend's 11-year-old relative for sexual purposes between September 30 and October 18, 1996.

The appeal was handled by lawyer Julian Hall, while prosecutor Patrick Doherty appeared for the Crown.

The original case was conducted by Victoria Pearman and Crown counsel Lesley Basden.

Mr. King found that his sentencing powers were insufficient and ordered the man to be sentenced in the Supreme Court.

He said the case was "one of the worst cases of child molestation ever seen''. The girl was just nine-years-old at the time.

Last December, Chief Justice Austin Ward rejected an appeal of the conviction and sentenced the man to six years in prison -- just one year more than Mr.

King's maximum sentencing power but well short of the higher court's maximum of 20 years.

In giving his judgment, Mr. King said the crux of the case was whether sex abuse had occurred and not whether she had contracted STDs from the man.

Appeals judges found that evidence from a medical doctor about the girl's physical condition "was not corrobative'' of the girl's evidence because the doctor could not say who gave her the diseases.

Judges order new trial in sexual assault case "His evidence might have supported the child's evidence that there had been sexual contact with her, but that is as far as it went,'' the justices wrote.

They added: "It fell far short of corroboration in the legal sense.'' And while they said Mr. King "appreciated what the case was about'', if he relied on the doctor's evidence to support the prosecution's case, they could not believe he believed the girl without that evidence.

"The problem is,'' the justices wrote, "that the magistrate has made his finding that the child was a witness of truth backed by (the doctor's) pronouncement, coupled with his own observations of the child while giving her evidence.'' The Court of Appeal judgment added: "This clearly demonstrates that he used the evidence of Dr. Davidson as `supportive'. '' While they did not doubt the girl's testimony was truthful, the justices said the conviction could not stand in light of their findings "since a miscarriage of justice may have occurred''.

Last night the mother of the girl sent a letter to the editor of The Royal Gazette , complaining about the sentence and questioning the Court's decision.

She asked how could she explain the decision to her daughter and said if the man were in a Third World nation, "he would not be alive''.