A ?soft? sentence that allowed a man to walk free from court despite being found guilty of smashing a glass into a Police officer?s face has been overturned a year after the judgment.

Darren Michael Souza, 27, will now spend most of the next 12 months in jail despite being released a free man from his trial in April 2005.

Three Court of Appeal judges have ruled the Pembroke man should never have been released on a one-year sentence suspended for two years.

They have ordered Souza serve time for the wounding incident, of which he has been found guilty.

Souza, of Inland Lane, was convicted last summer of wounding Inspector Nicholas Pedro at the former Blue Juice bar, on Front Street, in the early hours of May 18, 2004.

He admitted using offensive language immediately before the wounding. A jury decided that he had swung his arm around and smashed the glass he was holding into the side of the off-duty Police officer?s face, causing cuts that have left permanent scarring to the victim.

It is one of only two ?glassing? incidents reported in Bermuda and at trial in April last year Souza was found guilty of wounding and given a one-year prison sentence suspended for two years by Judge Charles Etta-Simmons.

But that was too lenient in the view of the Department of Public Prosecutions, which asked for the judgment to be brought before the Court of Appeal for further consideration.

Lawyer Shakira Dill argued the one-year sentence was inadequate as such an offence carried a maximum sentence of five years and that it should not have been a suspended sentence based on the circumstances.

However, appearing for Souza at the appeal hearing lawyer Victoria Pearman said: ?It did appear to the judge that this was a one off.

?It was the type of case that could be dealt with by a short, sharp shock.?

She said that had already happened because Souza spent six weeks in custody immediately after the trial so that a social inquiry report and pre-sentence report could be prepared.

Having viewed the facts the Court of Appeal judges, Sir Austin Ward, Sir Charles Mantell and Court of Appeal President Mr. Justice Edward Zacca said the jail sentence should only have been suspended if there were exceptional circumstances.

The three judges said they have been unable to find any exceptional circumstances that would merit such a decision.

In a statement the judges said: ?We have come to the conclusion that the proper sentence should have been one of immediate imprisonment for two years.

?However, one year has passed since (Souza) was sentenced during which period he has served part of the suspended sentence.

?To require him to return to prison for two years would be unduly onerous.

?We have concluded that the sentence be one of imprisonment for one year with time served to be taken into account.?

Ms Pearman had appealed on behalf of Souza that the jury in the trial had not been properly directed by the judge regarding the wounding and the burden of proof required to convict, nor on how to decide if the wounding had been deliberate or an accident.

The Appeal judges rejected these appeals against conviction.

The Court of Appeal judges criticised the length of time it had taken for the appeal to be heard, which had been caused by the time taken to prepare verbatim court records.

The judges said: ?It should not be necessary to have the whole record prepared verbatim in order to deal with what may prove to be a very narrow point.?