probation order against a Spanish Point woman, who was convicted of molesting a boy.

Crown counsel Mr. Stephen Harrison told the court that the non-custodial sentence handed out to Andrea Irene Tucker was "manifestly inadequate'' and that a period of imprisonment should be handed down.

Mr. Harrison, referring to a psychological examination prepared by Dr. Norma Astwood, said that Tucker admitted to sexual acts with the child which included him fondling and sucking her breasts. However, the woman denied any acts of sexual intercourse took place with the five-year-old boy.

The incidents occurred while Tucker was babysitting the boy from the time he was six to 12 years old.

Tucker is a certified nursery school teacher who was employed at the Kidds Kollege on Dundonald Street between 1985 and 1992. She lost her job there when the charges were laid.

In her report, Dr. Astwood said that Tucker was developmentally slow and lacked emotional maturity. She was unable to defer her need to satisfy her sexual desires.

Mr. Harrison argued that then-Puisne Judge the Hon. Mr. Justice Ward failed to give sufficient weight to the child's age and the present and future effects of the incidents on the child. He also drew attention to the fact that the acts took place over a five- to six-year period.

Mr. Harrison further argued that the judge also failed to take into account the breach of trust that both the boy and his mother had placed in Tucker as a babysitter. He then asked for the ruling to be overturned and to make this case reflect the feelings of a civilised society.

"I don't think she should be treated as if she had no developmental difficulties,'' Mr. Harrison said. "But the sentence should consider the age and effects of this act on the child, the duration of the abuse and general deterrence.'' However, defence lawyer Mr. Archie Warner countered that the Crown was attempting to gloss over Mr. Ward's findings.

He outlined that Tucker had lower than average emotional and social development and the intelligence of a child five to six years old.

"It is these two defects that are manifested in the commission of this offence.'' Mr. Warner challenged the Crown's argument that the sentencing judge failed to give the proper weight to the gravity of the offence, the boy's age or the long term effects the incidents were likely to have.

"The judge did indicate that it was a serious offence,'' he said. "No doubt the abuse of a child is a ground for public concern.

"But in this case there are exceptional circumstances and explainable psychological reasons. It cannot be assumed that the judge didn't deal with these matters.

"This was an unfortunate incident, but the trial judge considered all the matters before him including the testimonials of her good character, the social inquiry report and Dr. Astwood's assessment and he did not feel a period of imprisonment would benefit her or society.''