Crown prosecutors have been condemned for their handling of a sex case after they did not charge a man who had intercourse with a 14-year-old girl with rape.

The girl's mother said Crown counsel Charlene Scott kept her family in the dark throughout the case and did not consult them over the decision to allow Shawn Eugene Gordon Smith to plead guilty to the lesser charge of having unlawful carnal knowledge of the teenager.

The girl, who cannot be named for legal reasons, always vehemently denied she consented to have sex with Smith, and tried to commit suicide after the ordeal.

The woman's lawyer, Juliana Jack, said the Crown's conduct had been "poor and neglectful''. She said it was common courtesy and good ethical practice to consult victims when the Crown was considering accepting a plea to a lesser charge, especially in such serious cases.

Acting Director of Public Prosecutions William Pearce refused to comment when asked by The Royal Gazette if he thought the case had been handled satisfactorily.

But he said Crown prosecutors will discuss the case at their next meeting to see if lessons can be learned for the future.

Smith, 29, of Sandys Parish, was imprisoned for 18 months in April when the Crown accepted his guilty plea to having carnal knowledge of the girl. He claimed the girl was sexually active and consented to intercourse.

In the Court of Appeal this month, the Crown failed to get Smith's sentence increased on the grounds that it was manifestly lenient.

Appeal Court President Sir James Astwood expressed astonishment that, based on the girl's statement, the Crown did not charge Smith with rape.

Sir James told Crown counsel Patrick Doherty: "Why did you accept that plea? If this is correct, that is rape, taking a woman against her consent. Someone gave evidence and you didn't proceed?'' In an exclusive interview with The Gazette , the girl's mother said: "My daughter would not have tried to commit suicide if she had been having consensual sex.

"No child would do that. She was feeling dirty from what he had done. He is only saying she was sexually active because he wants to clear himself.'' She added: "Ms Scott discussed absolutely nothing with me. I am outraged.

With this decision, the system -- the courts -- is protecting the perpetrator rather than the victim.

"Smith had opportunity to get a high priced lawyer, and we got someone who allowed him to plead guilty to a lesser charge when all the evidence and all the law say a child cannot consent to sex. Just like I said after he pleaded guilty, she was not sexually active.'' The mother is galled that Smith, who has a previous conviction for physically assaulting a woman, will not be obliged to accept treatment for sex abusers.

"My daughter was afraid of him,'' she said. "There have got to be tougher sentences to stop this. He'll be out next summer.'' She said her daughter, who is now abroad at school, is making slow recovery after being diagnosed as having traumatic stress syndrome and losing weight.

She added: "It was so many things that went wrong with the case. What was going through Ms Scott's mind? What happened was not discussed with me, just a `leave it to me' kind of thing.

"They need to discuss it with victims. Who has to suffer with the decisions afterward? We do. I'm not out to get vengeance from Smith or from Charlene Scott. The Bible says `don't worry with it'.'' Mrs Jack told The Royal Gazette : "Good practice, ethics and commonsense dictate that the Crown should consult the family prior to accepting a plea to a charge, particularly one as serious as this, that the complainant contests.

"Consent was always denied so it came as a shock to the complainant's family to hear that consent was the basis of the plea accepted by the prosecution.

"The family have been kept in the dark from the beginning and now to be told that he was sentenced on the basis of consent comes as a total shock. The conduct of the Crown has been poor and neglectful.'' Ms Scott refused to comment, but Acting DPP Mr. Pearce, said: "On the issue of whether the mother and victim were kept clearly informed, there appears to be a conflict between the Crown counsel's recollection and the mother's recollection.'' He said the Crown "did present a summary of the facts that demonstrated that the sexual act was not consensual, but the Court of Appeal observed that Crown counsel in charge of the case must have concluded that it was in the interests of justice for all parties to take the lesser charge''.

Mr. Pearce said the Appeal Court judges had stated that where there was conflict in submissions, the judge, Puisne Judge Norma Wade-Miller, was obliged to come down on the side of the defendant.

He refused to comment on whether the case had been handled satisfactorily, but added: "It is not uncommon in any case to learn something and very often procedures are changed within a department to avoid things that happened that should not have happened. I'm not saying that will necessarily flow from this decision, but this decision is instructive in giving us guidance for the future in dealing with cases where we have a conflict in submissions.

"There are other ways of dealing with it, and that will be a matter for discussions for prosecutors when we next meet to see if any lessons can be learned.''