The Tribune

By LAMECH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

ljohnson@tribunemedai.net

A man sentenced to life in prison for the throat-slashing murder of a fast food restaurant manager had his sentence reduced to 55 years by the Court of Appeal yesterday.

Simeon Bain, 44, and his court-appointed lawyer Fred Smith, QC, appeared in the Claughton House courtroom for the court’s decision on whether it should overturn a jury’s finding after having heard multiple arguments, including that Bain should have had legal representation in his murder trial concerning the killing of Rashad Morris.

Justice Anita Allen ruled that Bain’s appeal against conviction for murder, robbery, kidnapping and housebreaking had been dismissed. However, the court did allow his appeal against the life sentence for murder and he received 55 years imprisonment instead.

The court noted that the reasons for the decision were contained in its written judgment, which will be made available no later than Monday, January 25.

Mr Smith told The Tribune that it was too early to comment on the outcome without having read the court’s judgment but did say that the matter could be challenged to the country’s highest court, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

On May 2, 2013, Bain was unanimously convicted of all the charges he faced, except attempted robbery, concerning the September 19, 2009 death of 21-year-old Morris.

Morris was kidnapped from the Charlotte Street location of Burger King and taken to the Tonique Williams-Darling Highway location, where he had been the manager.

He was ordered to open the safe. After failing to do so, he was stabbed in the restaurant’s parking lot before his throat was slashed. Bain denied charges of murder, robbery, attempted robbery, housebreaking and kidnapping. Immediately after his conviction, the case’s lead prosecutor, then-Director of Public Prosecutions Vinette Graham-Allen, announced the Crown’s intention to seek the death penalty.

However, on July 30 Justice Indra Charles sentenced Bain to life imprisonment on the basis that the case did not meet the “worst of the worst” threshold set by the London-based Privy Council.