The Tribune

By FARRAH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

fjohnson@tribunemedia.net

THE COURT of Appeal has quashed the 30-year sentence of a man who was convicted of bludgeoning another man to death with a conch shell over five years ago.

Yesterday, the appellate panel of justices substituted Ashley Hield’s three-decade-long sentence with 20 years imprisonment, minus the time he has already spent on remand. They did this after ruling that it was “strange” for the court to impose the same sentence that was imposed for a murder conviction on the “lesser charge of manslaughter”.

In August 2015, John Henry Frazier asked two men on Gibbs Corner if they wanted to make five dollars by assisting him and his friend change a tyre on a vehicle. According to court documents, “things went horribly wrong” when one of the men robbed Frazier of his gold chain while his friend had gone to get the money changed to pay them.

During the trial, the prosecution’s case was that Hield hit Frazier in the head with a conch shell about five times, after Frazier followed Hield trying to get his chain back. They contended that Frazier managed to get up, but was attacked by Hield once again, who pursued him with the conch shell in his hand as he tried to leave.

Hield, on the other hand, argued that in the course of helping Frazier change the tyre, Frazier “began rushing him”. When he testified during the proceedings, he said this made him frustrated and he tried to leave, but he and Frazier “ended up hassling” and Frazier’s gold chain popped during the altercation. Hield said he attempted to walk away but Frazier pursued him seeking payment for his chain which he insisted Hield had broken. He claimed Frazier threw rocks at him from behind and began charging at him with a broken bottle, which prompted him to pick up the conch shell and hit Frazier with it.

Although Hield was charged with Frazier’s murder, a jury found him guilty of manslaughter and he was subsequently sentenced to 30 years imprisonment, less the time spent on remand. He recently sought an application for an extension of time within which to appeal his conviction and sentence.

Nonetheless, Justices Sir Michael Barnett, Jon Isaacs, and Maureen Crane-Scott refused his application to appeal his conviction. Still, the panel allowed Hield to appeal his sentence and substituted his original punishment of 30 years’ imprisonment to 20 years behind bars.

In their judgement, delivered by Justice Isaacs, the panel ruled that where a good character direction was required but not given, the court had to consider whether the direction would have made a difference to the jury’s verdict if it had been given.

“The Court is satisfied that having regard to the state of the evidence in this case even if a full good character direction had been given the jury would inevitably have convicted the intended appellant,” Justice Isaacs stated.

“Regarding the intended appellant’s complaint that his sentence is unduly severe, the court is of the view that the prospects of success are good as the judge ritualistically relied on the range of sentences suggested by Larry Raymond Jones and also due to the judge’s failure to observe and sentence the intended appellant in accordance with the jury’s verdict.

“In the result, the application for an extension of time to appeal against conviction is refused; the application for an extension of time within which to appeal sentence is however allowed. The sentence of 30 years’ imprisonment is quashed, and a sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment substituted. This sentence is to be reduced by three years and seven months having regard to the time spent on remand awaiting trial.

“Therefore, the sentence of 16 years and five months is to run from the date of conviction”.