A man jailed 12 months for brutally beating a dog, was told that he cannot have his conviction overturned and can only appeal for it to be reduced.

Stanley `Smiler' Antoine Perinchief, 35 of Spring Hill Road in Warwick, was convicted last October of brutally beating a Pitbull with a concrete block, stabbing it in the eye and chest and leaving it to die.

The attack sparked widespread public outrage, especially among animal rights activists who called for harsher punishments for such crimes.

But at the Supreme Court -- sitting as the court of appeal yesterday -- Perinchief argued his sentence should be reduced on the grounds the ruling was too harsh.

Perinchief, representing himself, initially tried to have his conviction overturned, but Mr. Justice Ward said that action was not possible since Perinchief pleaded guilty.

Perinchief responded: "The statements I issued to the Police officers wasn't presented in the court. That evidence (the prosecution used) that came out of my mouth was hearsay. I never said no such thing.'' Mr. Justice Ward responded: "There is no appealing a conviction because you pleaded guilty. Once that was presented you accepted it.

"There's a difference between an appeal against sentence and an appeal against conviction.'' Mr. Justice Ward added.

"Well, I felt I should have been given a chance,'' Perinchief said. "I just got my life back together and was due to get married as was the case -- and at the time, I just started this job.'' Mr. Justice Ward said Perinchief failed to tell the Magistrate anything aside from: "I'm sorry.'' Perinchief rebutted, saying his previously clean record, marriage, employment and living situation should have been taken into consideration.

Mr. Justice Ward said: "But you killed a dog -- you admit it.'' Perinchief said he did not try to kill the dog and the only reason he admitted guilt was because he had the marriage on his mind and he thought the punishment would be a fine.

Chief Justice Austin Ward said unless the Office of Public Prosecutions could prove otherwise, he was inclined to see the sentence as outside the limits of a Magistrate's power.

Under the Care and Protection of Animals Act, section 15, a person who commits an offence under the Act can be imprisoned for up to 12 months and/or fined up to $1000.

Perinchief was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment and a $900 fine by Magistrate Edward King.

Under the Summary Jurisdiction Act of 1930, a fine over $500 attracts a default prison term of six months if the fine is not paid.

Mr. Justice Ward said under the Care and Protection of Animals Act, 12 months was the maximum prison sentence.

He said: "Doesn't the law say a Magistrate can't imprison someone over 12 months. It was a sentence of 18 months if you do not pay the fine.'' But Crown Counsel Oonagh Goodred argued the sentence should stand because it was within the law: "The sentence itself is the 12 months. The six months default relates strictly to the fine.'' But Mr. Justice Ward said once a man was kept in prison, he was carrying out an imprisonment sentence.

He told Mrs. Goodred: "Unless you have some authority to persuade me otherwise I am in the view that the order (sentence) was in excess of jurisdiction.'' The case was adjourned until February after Mrs. Goodred established she wanted more time to consult with the DPP.

During sentencing in October, Magistrate Edward King said: "For this horrific crime, nothing but the maximum term of imprisonment is adequate.'' Stanley Perinchief makes his way to court last October.