A judgment on a prosecution appeal against what was argued was a too lenient sentence will be announced in two weeks.

Cindy Clarke, the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions, asked the Court of Appeal for a three-year sentence for Chez Rogers, 20, who was jailed for 18 months for unlawful carnal knowledge and luring of a 13-year-old girl earlier this year.

Ms Clarke, who called for a sentence between three and four years at Rogers’ Supreme Court trial, said yesterday that the sentence were “manifestly inadequate”.

She added: "The sentence imposed by the learned sentencing judge was disproportionate to the gravity of the acts of the respondent.

“The respondent’s acts were highly reprehensible and sufficiently serious and he was sufficiently blameworthy to warrant a significantly greater penalty than what was given.“

Rogers, from St George’s, was jailed on July 15 after he admitted the offences in Supreme Court.

The court heard that Rogers was caught after the victim's mother discovered a series of sexual messages between her daughter and the defendant, who was aged 19 at the time.

Rogers admitted to police that he had communicated with the girl on social media and that they had sex on two occasions.

The offences took place between August 1 and October 1 last year.

Puisne Judge Charles-Etta Simmons sentenced Rogers to 18 months imprisonment for unlawful carnal knowledge and 12 months for luring, but ordered the sentences to run concurrently.

She said that the appropriate starting point for the sentence was two years, but added that Rogers deserved a discount for an early guilty plea and his previous good character.

Ms Clarke told the court yesterday that she believed Mrs Justice Simmons did not consider the outcome of similar cases in the Supreme Court as much as was needed.

She highlighted that there had been cases where the defendant received longer sentences for unlawful carnal knowledge and luring.

Ms Clarke added that Mrs Justice Simmons received "no guidance at all“ when she sentenced Rogers for luring.

Charles Richardson, who appeared for Rogers, agreed that there were not proper guidelines for Mr Rogers’s luring sentence.

But he added that the sentences his client received were “consistent with previous sentences”.

Mr Richardson said that the examples he provided during the trial were not “unhelpful” despite their differences to Rogers’s case.

He added: “In fact, it makes them very helpful in light of the fact that there was no other guidance available to the judge on this occasion and the factual situations were very, very close.”

Mr Richardson made a series of controversial comments during the Rogers’s earlier sentencing hearing.

He said that his client accepted full responsibility for his actions.

But he told the court that there was a phenomenon of “young women” who tried to have sex with older men “for sport” and suggested that child victims should be held partly responsible.

The comments sparked fury from child protection charities and the sentencing judge.

Justice of Appeal Maurice Kay adjourned the hearing for two weeks.