A Supreme Court Judge failed to take mitigating factors into account when he sentenced a man to ten years in prison for having a sexual relationship with a minor, the Court of Appeals ruled yesterday.

The panel, made up of President Sir James Astwood, Edward Zacca and Lindsay Worrell, commuted the 43-year-old man's sentence to four years after noting that Acting Justice Archibald Warner had "not given sufficient consideration to what should have been the appropriate sentence" at the original hearing in March.

Earlier that month, the man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, had pleaded guilty to one count of sexual exploitation of a young person, aged 14, and to one count of buggery, offences which were committed between September 2000 and February 2001.

One of the man's lawyers, Saul Froomkin, declined to comment on yesterday's ruling, but his colleague, Paul Woolgar, welcomed the decision and said he believed the original sentence had been "manifestly excessive".

On making that ruling, Mr. Warner said: "This was a callous and deceitful exploitation of a victim who was a confused and troubled young man. I am of the view that these are serious offences - including serious exploitation."

But earlier this month, Mr. Froomkin submitted to the Appeals Court Panel that the ten-year jail term his client had received was "too Draconian" and in excess even of what the Crown had recommended.

Mr. Froomkin said on June 7: "There was nothing to indicate that the relationship between the `victim' and the Appellant was callous or deceitful or exploitive."

He continued: "The record is clear that the `victim' was a willing and eager participant in homosexual activity with which he was more than familiar.

"The victim's age was the only negative feature in this case."

According to a summary of the evidence, the man, who was the boy's employer, dined with the victim's family several times before he took the youngster to his apartment, where he performed oral sex on him and allowed the boy to perform anal sex on him.

The boy also performed oral sex on the man at their place of work.

In yesterday's judgment, Sir James said there were "many issues" which Mr. Warner should have taken into consideration before sentencing, including the fact that the boy did not object when the man made sexual advances towards him at their workplace.

Sir James said the boy had already told the man that he was "gay" and added: "It appears from his statements that he did not find the Appellant's conduct objectionable."

Also cited in the judgment was the fact that the victim impact statement from the boy was read into the record but not supported by other evidence. Sir James said: "(The boy's) allegations should have been investigated further by the court to satisfy itself that whatever mental or physical disorders may be suffered by the boy are attributable to is relationship with the Appellant and not in any way attributable to his relationship with any other males persons or to any other reasons."

It was also noted that the boy accepted presents from the man and told girlfriends about the relationship, which he said "wasn't romantic, it was physical".

Sir James pointed out that Crown Counsel Cindy Clarke submitted that an "appropriate" sentence for the man would have been four to five years imprisonment.

He noted: "We accept this as the correct range of sentence applicable to this case."

And he said Mr. Warner "should have considered what should be the sentence to impose, and then go on to consider the mitigating factors which could attract a discount".

Sir James surmised: "Justice would be done in this case if a sentence of four years imprisonment were imposed in count one (sexual exploitation), and a two-year sentence imposed on count three (buggery)."

The terms are to run concurrently, with time already spent in custody taken into account.