ANOTHER sentence passed by Oxford judge Julian Hall on a sex offender is being taken to the Court of Appeal.

The Solicitor General has asked the court to reconsider a three-year supervision order Judge Hall handed to a child molester in January, on the grounds the sentence was unduly lenient.

It is the second time that a sentence he has passed on a sex offender has been referred to the court in less than a year.

In October, the court ruled that window cleaner Keith Fenn, who raped a ten-year-old girl, should serve four years - double the sentence originally set by Judge Hall.

In the latest case, a 17-year-old - who cannot be named for legal reasons - walked free from court after abusing two young children because Judge Hall said he was not dangerous.

Solicitor General Vera Baird approached the court to review the latest sentence after she was contacted by a relative of the paedophile's victims and Phoenix Advocates, the child protection group run by Sara Payne, mother of murdered schoolgirl Sarah Payne.

Ms Baird, one of the Government's chief legal advisers, is waiting for a date for a hearing, during which she will argue that the paedophile should have his punishment increased.

The teenager was given a three-year supervision order, banned from contacting children by text, telephone or the Internet for ten years and ordered to sign the sex offenders' register.

He was also banned from living in any property in which children stay overnight and is not allowed to associate with any child under 16 who is not in the presence of a parent of a guardian.

Originally from Berinsfield, it is believed he now lives in Oxford.

The sister of one of the victims said the youth deserved three years in jail for his crimes.

She said: "I was gutted when I heard the sentence. I lost all faith in the prosecution service. It was ridiculous.

"The hardest thing to do was explaining to my sister why he did not go to prison for what he did to her.

Judge Julian Hall cannot for one minute justify his reasoning for it. How can you not give him a custodial sentence? I feel relieved it has been recognised it is a joke of a sentence."

A spokesman for the Judicial Communications Office, which represents Judge Hall, said: "From time to time sentencing decisions are referred to the Court of Appeal for them to reconsider, if they are wrong they are corrected."