A FORMER soldier — cleared by the Court of Appeal of murdering his baby son — was last week sentenced to ten years in prison for manslaughter.

Michael Burridge, 31, of Tavistock, was jailed for life in March 2008, after a Plymouth Crown Court jury found him guilty of murdering eight-week old Rees. But his conviction was downgraded to manslaughter by appeal judges last month and last week he was re-sentenced.

As he will serve only half of that in prison, and has already served more than two-and-a-half years, the decision means Burridge will be freed no later than February 2013.

Giving reasons for their appeal decision, Lord Justice Leveson, Mr Justice Irwin and Mr Justice Holroyde said they had 'real hesitation' about quashing the conviction.

Rees died in September 2006 after suffering a catalogue of injuries, which prosecutors said had occurred when his father violently shook him.

But, during the appeal, his barrister Henry Blaxland QC, introduced fresh evidence from a top histopathologist — an expert in body tissue examination — who suggested Rees' bones may have been weak.

Professor Archie Malcolm said it was possible that a pivotal rib injury may have been caused by 'zealous' resuscitation techniques used by the father or medical staff.

The 'fresh evidence' given in the appeal led to the judges overturning the murder conviction last month, and downgrading it to manslaughter on the basis that Burridge did not have the 'intent' to kill or cause really serious harm.

Last week, Lord Justice Leveson said: 'Our view here is that the evidence points, at least, to an intent just short of that necessary for murder.'

Re-sentencing him, he said the manslaughter was aggravated by the fact that Burridge had caused earlier fractures to Rees' ribs and that to do so would have required 'considerable force'.

'It is legitimate to infer that the fatal injury was inflicted in temper, about which the appellant had been warned by his family and advised to seek help,' he continued.

'He was not honest in what he told the hospital and, of greater significance, maintained his denial.

'On the other hand, we also reflect upon the mitigation which the judge accepted there was no intent to kill, no premeditation and the incident, in temper, was committed against a background of stress in his marriage with him working long and unsociable hours.'

The father was also of good character at the time and had an 'exemplary' service record in the Army, which he had joined at 17 and left in 2002.

'Although we recognise that this appellant has had to suffer not only the loss of his own child, but must also come to terms with the guilt of having caused the child's death, the very least sentence that we believe it appropriate to impose is one of 10 years imprisonment,' said the judge.