"She rebuffed you and your evidence was that you stopped."
Impson and the victim knew each other because her mother had previously had him keep an eye on her when she would go out.
Impson was aware that her parents were in custody at the time of his offending.
You knew she was vulnerable and you knew she was someone who was effectively living without a supportive adult
"She was living with her grandfather. You knew she was vulnerable and you knew she was someone who was effectively living without a supportive adult," Judge Crayton said.
"Your offer of cannabis was a manipulative act, purely designed to ingratiate her, to put her in debt to you, not for money, but to make her more likely to acquiesce to your sexual desires."
A series of text messages used as evidence during the trial indicated that Impson's behaviour was persistent over a course of time.
At one stage, Impson offered the complainant money for sexual activity.
"Although this was manipulative, although this was all designed to get to an end point, at the end of the day I have two factors: the first is, he stopped, he didn't force it," the Judge said.
"The second is that those messages identified that he went a bit cold on her, there was a long gap and then when she next contacted him for drugs, he went a bit cold."
It was also noted that what Impson did was not surreptitious, the complainant knew what she was doing and was familiar with cannabis.
Judge Crayton said his own impressions of Impson as a witness were that his credibility was not particularly high by the end of the trial.
"The overwhelming impression I had of you as a witness was of someone whose evidence lacked any real credibility by the close of your time in the witness box.
"Whatever my feeling in my gut is, the basis of my sentence has to reflect that the jury's finding means that when she rebuffed him physically, he stopped."
The Judge noted that he had to approach sentencing judicially and with an honest intellectual approach.
"The message needs to be clearly understood that the supply of any drug to someone who is a minor is not acceptable and will never be tolerated," Judge Crayton said.
"Had you persisted, you would have gone to prison. Had this been surreptitious, you would have gone to prison. Had your victim not been someone who was previously familiar with cannabis, you would have gone to prison."
"But on this occasion, I find it is appropriate to commute your sentence to one of 10 months' and one week home detention."
