A Supreme Court Judge expressed his anger at a ruling by the Court of Appeal last month that said he was too harsh when he handed a paedophile a ten-year jail term.

Assistant Justice Archie Warner said the judgement had impeded him from imposing proper deterrent punishments in sex offence cases when it commuted the man's sentence to four years in prison.

He maintained that the man, who admitted to having sex with a 14-year-old boy, had originally been given a just sentence, in light of the fact that the maximum limit for the crime is 15 years.

And Mr. Warner said he "stood by" his description of the 43-year-old, who cannot be named for legal reasons, as someone who "callously" and "deceitfully" exploited a minor.

"The ten-year sentence didn't cause me any problems. I don't quite understand what the Court of Appeal was saying," he said yesterday, just before he sentenced another man for having unlawful carnal knowledge of a minor.

The 21 year old man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was sent to prison for two-and-a-half years for having sex with a 13-year-old girl.

Mr. Warner continued: "There needs to be a deterrent sentence handed out in cases where children of this age are involved. I handed out such a sentence last time and the Court of Appeal ruled it was barbaric.

"It would seem that the court was saying that the matter was a minimum case."

The man was originally sentenced in March after he admitted to one count of sexual exploitation of a young person, and to one count of buggery, offences which were committed between September 2000 and February 2001.

The original sentence was commuted to four years by the Appeals Court earlier this month after the panel ruled that Mr. Warner had failed to take into account the proper mitigating factors.

But during sentencing of a separate case yesterday he said: "This presents real problems. The Court of Appeal says, even though the complainant in these cases was 13-year-old, that ten years would be too draconian."

He said he believed elements of the evidence in both cases which alluded to the fact that the victims were willing participants in sexual acts were irrelevant.

"It is a madness to say that, on the one hand, the law is there to protect these children and, on the other hand, to say that if these young people were agreeing with it, it should be a mitigating factor in deciding a sentence."

"A sentence should be imposed that acts as a deterrent for other people."

He added: "I must submit to (the Appeals Court's) directions. However, in that case, even when we apply the most liberal principles, the appropriate sentence still seems to end up at around ten years." Last month, the Court of Appeals panel, made up of President Sir James Astwood, Edward Zacca and Lindsay Worrell, said Mr. Warner had "not given sufficient consideration to what should have been the appropriate sentence" at the original hearing in March.

Following the ruling, one of the man's lawyers, Paul Woolgar, welcomed the reduction and said he believed the original sentence had been "manifestly excessive".

In making his case to the Court of Appeal, his colleague Saul Froomkin had argued that the ten-year jail term his client had received was "too draconian" and in excess even of what the Crown had recommended.