issued new get-tough sentencing guidelines.

Yesterday the Court upheld an appeal by the Crown which argued a suspended sentence given for a man who attacked his victim on the street was "manifestly inadequate''.

In his ruling, Appeal Court President Sir James Astwood, effectively increased sentences for street muggers issuing new guidelines for judges to follow.

He said in future sentences should range from three to six years -- instead of the current two to three year range.

Yesterday the Crown successfully appealed against a two-year prison sentence, suspended for 18 months, imposed by the Supreme Court on Steven G. Caisey.

At the Supreme Court, last May, he pleaded guilty to robbery with personal violence. The appeal was launched on the grounds the sentence was manifestly inadequate.

The court heard that last December the victim left the Swinging Doors Bar on Court Street, and was attacked by Caisey and another person on Elliott Street.

He was hit on the head and fell to the ground. As he tried to escape he was knocked to the ground a second time and robbed of about $30.

At the time of the attack, Caisey, of South Road, Southampton, was on bail for Court recommends lengthier sentences for street robbers During the court hearing, two people gave character references for Caisey saying he was making a genuine effort to wean himself off drugs and change his lifestyle.

One said she was impressed by Caisey's sincerity and genuinely believed that Jesus Christ had touched his life.

In his summing up, Sir James said their submissions influenced the Chief Justice "who also had before him a social enquiry report and the respondent's (Caisey's) attrocious criminal record''.

"Some of his previous convictions involved offences of violence, theft and offences against the Misuse of Drugs Act,'' said Sir James.

During the appeal, Crown Counsel Mr. Brian Calhoun argued that robberies such as street muggings usually attracted sentences ranging from two to five years.

Mr. Mark Pettingill, for Caisey, said the Chief Justice took into account the character references and "must have found that there were exceptional circumstances as a reason for suspending the sentence''.

However, Sir James said the Court could see no evidence of exceptional circumstances and allowed the appeal and quashed the sentence.

The Appeal Court substituted a two-year jail term, although any time spent in custody awaiting trial will be taken into consideration.

"The offence of robbery should attract a sentence of imprisonment directly,'' said Sir James in his summing up.

"This offence is, as the learned Chief Justice stated, `serious' and the public have to be protected from persons who would deign to attack and rob them of their money and goods,'' he added.

Five years ago, the Appeal Court reduced a sentence for a similar crime from four years to two years. Sir James said he believed the Chief Justice thought of the case when sentencing Caisey.

"That case was decided in 1990. Since that time the menace from drugs in our society has increased considerably, leading to an increased number of street muggings.

"Therefore penalties for this type of offence should now attract a sentence in the range of three to six years. With further aggravating factors a sentence exceeding this range should be considered.''