A teenager placed on two years' probation for uttering racial slurs to a Policeman, has appealed his sentence in Supreme Court.

Michael Diel will have to wait until next week for Chief Justice Richard Ground to deliver his judgement on the matter.

The 19-year-old was arrested in August after an altercation with officers who believed he was in control of a cycle while impaired. Diel told an officer attempting to handcuff him: "You n*gger, get me out of these f*cking things n*gger. I am going to f*ck you up n*gger. You don't know who you are messing with. My dad's a lawyer."

His father Mark Diel is a partner at law firm Marshall, Diel and Myers.

On September 14 Diel was sentenced to two years probation after he pleaded guilty to using offensive words, violently resisting arrest and failing to give a breath sample. He was also fined $1,000 and banned from driving all vehicles for a year.

Diel was represented by lawyer Tim Marshall in Supreme Court on Thursday.

Mr. Marshall argued his client had been sentenced based on his past problems with cannabis and not the actual crime.

"The focus was all wrong," he said. "The first point of the probation order is that he is to avoid illicit substances, which has nothing at all to do with the offence.

"The complaint we have is that the probation order focuses on Mr. Diel's past difficulties, difficulties that he and his family have been successfully dealing with."

While Mr. Marshall called his client's language "unattractive in the least", he argued that there was no evidence of racism.

Mr. Justice Ground responded: "The words themselves are evidence. There are ways of offending Police officers that do not involve bringing into account their race."

Mr. Marshall said that the sentence should be altered to allow Diel to attend university in January. He suggested fines or community service as alternative penalties.

"Overwhelmingly, the first offence for such an offender is a fine," he said.

"If you arrive in a place where the probation order remains intact, then the only person who can determine if this kid goes to university is Probation Services."

Mr. Marshall also argued there was no precedent of a probation order being issued for the charge of offensive words in the case of an individual with an otherwise clean record a point that Crown counsel Larissa Burgess agreed with.

However despite the lack of precedent, Ms Burgess said that the sentence was proportionate to the offence. She added that it was well within the accepted range of sentences for using offensive words, which can carry a six-month prison sentence.

Mr. Justice Ground said that the appeal "presents difficult issues," adding he would reserve judgement until next week.