A dentist plans to go to jail rather than pay a fine after his appeal against a conviction for defrauding an insurance company was dismissed.

Although his appeal against his sentence was allowed and his $6,000 fine was slashed by two thirds, Dr. Clark Godwin said yesterday he will serve the default sentence of three months instead "as a matter of principle''.

"I know what I heard and what other dentists told me. If I were to pay the fine it would be tantamount to me admitting that I was the only one involved in the scheme,'' he said.

Dr. Godwin was fined $6,000 in July of last year after being found guilty of four charges of intent to defraud Somers Isles Insurance in an bid to gain more than $3,000.

He had treated patients for work not covered by their insurance and then billed the company for work that was covered. He told the court he was helping patients to get the right treatment.

Dr. Godwin claimed it was common practice for dentists to cross-charge and appealed the conviction and sentence on four grounds yesterday.

He said Senior Magistrate William Francis failed to consider evidence given during his cross-examination of prosecution witness Sandra Rose where she allegedly admitted to the prevalence of cross-charging in the dental profession.

Dr. Godwin said Mr. Francis also failed to allow him to give evidence which was called hearsay and failed to adequately consider all his evidence.

And he said the sentence was too severe and wrong in principle.

When asked about the prevalence of cross-charging under cross-examination during the trial, Mrs. Rose said "it may be true''.

But Puisne Judge Richard Ground said he did not think Mrs. Rose admitted to the prevalence of cross-charging by saying that. He said: "On the face of it, it is a statement that the witness does not know either way, so that it may be true.'' Mr. Justice Ground said the Senior Magistrate's decision that Dr. Godwin's conversation with another person was hearsay and could not be admitted as evidence was correct.

He added that he believed Mr. Francis considered the defence's evidence adequately.

But he struck down the Senior Magistrate's fines of $1,500 for each count as they exceeded his jurisdiction. He said Mr. Francis was only able to impose a maximum fine of $600 or a sentence of up to 12 months.

Mr. Justice Ground then substituted the fines with a fine of $500 on each count.

But Dr. Godwin said: "It's not fair to me. I can't live with my conscience.

If I pay the fine, people will say Clark was the only man who cross-charged.

"I can not have that on my conscience.'' Mr. Justice Ground replied: "Dr. Godwin, that is a matter for you. Personally I think it would be a great pity if, at this stage of your career, you put yourself in the position of going to prison over this matter.'' He then gave Dr. Godwin until January 31 to reconsider his position.

Afterward Dr. Godwin said: "I'll do the time. I will go to jail on principle as I feel this is not something I can compromise. I can not live with it on my conscience.'' He stressed: "It is not the money. It is the principle of right and wrong.

"Somers Isle said to me they know everyone is doing it. They gave the idea to me.'' "What I'm saying is if Somers Isle know people are doing it -- why choose me to go after? They could have chosen anyone. I had just started in the profession,'' said Dr. Godwin.

He said he believed there were racial reasons behind why he was singled out.

"When I asked Mrs. Rose in my cross-examination why I was being singled out she didn't deny it. She said it wasn't because I am black.

"She should have said I wasn't singled out because I was the only one involved if that was the case,'' he said. "If it means making them think twice because I go to jail for what I believe in then I will make them think before doing it again.'' MATTER OF PRINCIPLE -- Dr. Clark Godwin