A Crown attorney yesterday urged Appeals Court judges to jail a convicted robber presently free and serving a suspended sentence.

Stephen Gilbert Caisey, 35, of South Road, Southampton was convicted of robbing a man of $30 on December 6, 1994.

He was given a two-year suspended sentence.

Senior Crown Counsel Mr. Brian Calhoun, who appealed Caisey's suspended sentence on behalf of the Attorney General's chambers, said the sentence was "manifestly inadequate''.

Mr. Calhoun said the sentence should have been at the higher end of a two- to five-year range because of the prevalence of robberies committed with violence in Bermuda.

He argued that Caisey, who was not present in court, had used violence, worked with an accomplice, and committed the robbery while on bail.

These facts he said made the offence more serious.

He said the suspended sentence would not deter people from committing muggings.

Mr. Calhoun said crimes like robbery were becoming a problem in the community and the courts needed to ensure offenders were adequately punished.

And he said the Chief Justice had no provision in law to impose a condition that Caisey reside at "His House'' -- a Christian home for drug addicts that have run afoul of the law -- and abide by their rules.

He argued that while such a provision existed in English law, the corresponding provision did not exist in Bermuda. Therefore the Chief Justice erred when he made the ruling.

Mr. Calhoun said there was no remedy available if Caisey breached the provision to stay at His House.

The senior Crown counsel said suspended sentences were only appropriate when there were exceptional circumstances which at the very least required that they are "unique and rare'' and not the usual facts urged in mitigation like age, a guilty plea, remorse or time spent on remand.

But Mr. Calhoun said the Chief Justice appeared to take as an exceptional circumstance Caisey's time spent in custody. This was exactly the kind of fact the higher courts have ruled is not exceptional, he said.

Caisey's lawyer Mr. Mark Pettingill said the Chief Justice had found that the "radical and significant'' changes in his client's life since his conversion to Christianity were the exceptional circumstances needed to justify the two-year suspended sentence.

"Given the state of the law,'' Mr. Pettingill said, "what is exceptional is a matter of discretion.'' Mr. Pettingill said that the Chief Justice applied a subjective test to decide what an exceptional circumstance was.

But Mr. Justice Dacosta pointed out there was no factual basis for the Chief Justice's finding because it was based solely on a counsellor's impressions of Caisey while he was in prison.

And this amounted to no more than "pious hopes and nebulous circumstances'' rather than hard facts.

"Some people find the Lord on a Sunday,'' Mr. Justice Dacosta said. "But they unfind him on a Monday.'' President of the Bermuda Court of Appeal Sir James Astwood said: "He may have led others to the Lord while he was on remand but he is not here (in court).

Perhaps if he was here we could look into his eyes and see Jesus in his soul.'' The panel will hand down its ruling at a later date.