Sex offender’s jail term extended

David John Burns (34), showered his victim with £1,000-worth of gifts, before bedding her several times in Sheffield hotels.

Burns, of Rother Road, Rotherham was caged for 30 months at Sheffield Crown Court, last October, after he admitted seven counts of sexual activity with a child.

But three senior judges at London’s Appeal Court upheld a bid by Solicitor General Robert Buckland QC to increase Burns’ jail term.

Lady Justice Hallett said the punishment was “undoubtedly unduly lenient”  and upped it by 80 per cent to four-and-a-half years.

The judge said Burns befriended his victim before her 15th birthday and spent a four-figure sum on gifts for her.

He later took her to hotels where they kissed, cuddled and eventually had sex.

During one visit to Sheffield, Burns attempted to check into a double hotel room with the girl.

But they left after staff became suspicious and asked for proof that the youngster’s parents had consented to her stay.

Burns then took her immediately to another hotel and they had sex once again.

But police telephoned the pair’s mobile phones after staff at the first hotel contacted them and gave Burns’ name, which he’d used in the booking.  

Police arrested Burns shortly afterwards but he declined to comment in interviews.

He later said he’d “fallen in love” with the victim and his emotions had “got the better of him”.

The girl’s mother said in a statement that Burns’ crimes had caused “immeasurable pain and distress to her daughter and the rest of her family”.

Applying to have the sentenced increased, Jacob Hallam, for the Solicitor General, argued that 30 months was nowhere near tough enough.

The barrister argued that the sentence failed to properly take into account sentencing guidelines.

Burns’ lawyers pointed to his previous good character and his prompt guilty pleas, as well as the fact his marriage and his career had been wrecked by the conviction.

But Lady Justice Hallett, sitting with Mr Justice Jeremy Baker and Mrs Justice Andrews, said: “The sentence imposed was undoubtedly unduly lenient.

“Giving full allowance for the mitigating factors and the pleas of guilty, the shortest sentence that should have been imposed on the offender was one of four-and-a-half years.”