A youth leader jailed for kissing a schoolboy in his care has lost an appeal against conviction.

Milton Richardson, 48, from Devonshire, was convicted earlier this year of four counts of sexual assault while in a position of trust.

During his trial, the court heard that on two occasions last January, Richardson had kissed the victim on his cheek, neck, ear and mouth, attempting on one occasion to put his tongue in the boy’s mouth.

The victim told his mother about the incidents, leading her and her husband to confront Richardson.

During the conversation, which was recorded by the mother, Richardson admitted kissing the boy on the side of his mouth and apologised repeatedly for causing the boy distress, but denied any sexual motivation behind the contact.

On the stand, Richardson maintained his innocence, stating that he may have accidentally kissed the corner of the boy’s mouth, but he never touched the boy for a sexual purpose.

Magistrate Khamisi Tokunbo found him guilty on all four counts, sentencing him to 18 months in prison.

Richardson subsequently launched appeals against both his conviction and his sentence.

Lawyer Michael Scott, representing Richardson, argued that the Crown had not proven he had acted with a “sexual purpose” and the magistrate had erred in not applying the proper legal test to determine if the kisses were sexual in nature.

However prosecutor Susan Mulligan said the court found Richardson had moaned and asked the boy not to tell his parents, adding: “The trial judge accepted that the appellant tried to force his tongue inside the child’s mouth.

“One doesn’t normally put their tongue inside a child’s mouth if they are giving a fatherly kiss. I don’t care what culture you are in. I think that’s universal.”

In a written judgment issued this month, Chief Justice Ian Kawaley upheld Richardson’s conviction, stating: “The facts found by the trial judge clearly supported a finding that the sexual purpose element of the offences charged had been proved.

“Even if the appellant convinced himself that his affection for [the complainant] was wholly pure, platonic and/or paternal, the law requires his conduct to be judged in objective terms. And, for the avoidance of doubt, this conclusion is in no way impacted by the fact that this was a same-sex assault.

“It is inconceivable that any reasonable bystander observing the circumstances [the complainant] described in relation to the appellant on the two occasions in question would fail to conclude that the intimate kissing described was ‘for a sexual purpose’.

“In these circumstances, it is wholly irrelevant if the appellant, as the evidence suggests may have occurred, re-created in his own mind a sanitised version of the relevant events to shield his conscience from the full implications of a breach of trust which was seemingly out of character.”