A gambling addict who stole $150,000 will spend a further nine months in prison after the Court of Appeal ruled yesterday that his original three-month sentence was inadequate.

Former Bermuda Housing Corporation official Dana Edward Martin has already served his time in prison on alternate weeks and was still allowed to go to work every day, the court heard.

Martin, 43, of Home Port Drive, Hamilton Parish, had pleaded guilty in Supreme Court to five of seven charges of inducing $158,500 out of two unsuspecting investors from April 1 to September 14, 1999 and was sentenced to 90 days in prison and 18 months probation.

But Crown counsel Juan Wolffe told the court that one of Martin?s victims had been incarcerated because of the debt he had caused her.

?The sentence was that was handed down by the trial judge (Puisne judge Charles-Etta Simmons) was manifestly inadequate,? he said. ?It did not take into account all the circumstances.

?The sentence given doesn?t even reach the lower end that could be reached.?

Mr. Wolffe said Martin had led his victims astray and when they would ask for their returns he would tell them that they were doing well.

Martin had induced $115,000 from one victim, having gone to her on three different occasions and from the other he had taken $43,500 over two occasions.

Mr. Wolffe said the social inquiry report had stated that there was a great risk of Martin re-offending as he had been deemed a pathological gambler and he suggested that he had entered counselling because he wanted a lighter sentence.

?His crime is no different than that of someone who committed GBH (grievous bodily harm) ? we cannot just look at the blood and guts of a crime.

?(The victim) was totally devastated ? it is violence to her bank account.?

Mr. Wolffe said a sentence of 12 to 18 months should have been handed down. The maximum sentence for the offence is seven years in prison.

The appellant?s lawyer Elizabeth Christopher said the sentence of 90 days of alternate weeks in prison was handed down because Martin had set up a a counselling group called Gambling Anonymous.

The judge wanted him to have a chance to receive help for his gambling addiction, which he otherwise would not have received in Westgate Correctional Facility.

In response to Mr. Wolffe?s comments on Martin joining a counselling group to receive a lighter sentence, she said: ?Often it is when they hit rock bottom that they turn around.?

Ms Christopher also said the sentence was also designed so that Martin could pay restitution to his victims.

Since sentencing on September 2, Martin who works as a labourer earning $18 per hour, has paid $8,346, but before he had pleaded guilty to the crime he had paid back $20,000.

Court of Appeal President Justice Edward Zacca was concerned about the time it would take for Martin to fully compensate his victims, as at the moment he was taking home $600 a week and was paying about $150 each week. He also looked at the loss of possible interest the victims could have earned on their money.

The point was echoed by Court of Appeal Justice Sir Anthony Evans who said: ?What he is paying is very little ... it?s just impossible to achieve.?

Ms Christopher replied: ?The alternative to him making payments is going to prison and making no payments.?

Mr. Justice Zacca asked Ms Christopher if she accepted that a custodial sentence was appropriate.

?Yes, and this is the case,? she said but added he was able not only to make restitution, but also to maintain his family by being allowed to work while serving his prison sentence.

Mr. Justice Zacca said the Court upheld the appeal and ordered Martin to 12 months in prison, with the three months already spent in prison taken into account.

This will be followed by one year of probation.