A judge has attacked rules which forced him to slash a prison term for a teenage car thief arrested a staggering 130 times.

Judge Roger Scott reluctantly sliced 12 months off the Bradford youngster's sentence for a string of car crimes - and then condemned the situation as "quite wrong".

The 17-year-old has been convicted more than 60 times for a litany of offences - and was first questioned by detectives at the age of six.

His police record now reads like a book - covering 31 pages of print-outs.

The one-man crimewave, who lives on Bradford's Buttershaw estate, cannot be named for legal reasons. But he has been arrested 130 times, faced 101 charges and has been convicted 64 times. His convictions include:

Nineteen for taking a vehicle without the owner's consent (TWOC).

Six for aggravated TWOC.

Four for theft from motor vehicles.

Twelve for shoplifting.

Nine for driving while disqualified.

Seven for burglary.

Two for robbery.

One for handling stolen property.

He appeared at Bradford Crown Court yesterday to appeal against an 18-month detention and training order imposed by magistrates.

The youngster was given 12 months for his latest offences of theft, driving while disqualified and taking a vehicle without the owner's consent.

But the city's magistrates also ordered him to serve a further six months which was outstanding from a previous custodial sentence.

After hearing details about the case Judge Roger Scott, who was sitting with two magistrates, told the teenager: "We think the sentence that was imposed upon you was entirely correct.

"However, the Government thinks differently.

"We are, individually, of the view that what we are about to do is quite, quite wrong because you are getting credit all over the place here and that's going to result in a very lenient sentence indeed."

Judge Scott said under current legislation the total sentence for the latest offences should have been 10 months, and added that they had to take account of the fact that the teenager had spent the equivalent of two-and-a-half months on remand.

"We take two and a half months from 10 months and that leaves seven-and-a-half months," he said.

"We cannot pass a sentence of seven-and-a-half months - so the law says. We can only pass the next stage down which is six months."

Judge Scott said the total sentence would be six months for the latest matters and a further six months from the previous sentence.

"We think that is on any conceivable view wrong," he added.