TWENTY-FOUR-YEAR-OLD Kenkossie Lynch, through his attorney Adrian Thompson, has filed an appeal at the Appellate Court, for a sentence he received last week.

Lynch was slapped with a 75-year sentence by Justice Navindra Singh, for the murder of a mechanic in Mocha-Arcadia, East Bank Demerara (EBD), back in 2015.
According to the indictment, on June 1, 2015, at Nelson Street, Mocha-Arcadia, EBD, Lynch murdered 23- year-old Terrence Lanferman.

He faced a trial before Justice Singh and a mixed 12-member jury, with 15 witnesses testifying. According to reports, Lynch also implicated a cousin of his, Sedley Liverpool, called ‘Birdman.’ Liverpool was later charged for Lanferman’s murder and is currently awaiting trial at the High Court.

The Guyana Chronicle understands that the shooting stemmed from a feud between ‘Birdman’ and Lanferman, but Lynch reportedly admitted that he alone carried out the shooting.

On the day in question, Lynch allegedly returned to Mocha and met his cousin, Liverpool. Lynch then proceeded to Nelson Street in the same community to conduct surveillance on Lanferman’s house, after which he returned to ‘Birdman’s’ residence around 19:00hrs; Liverpool then allegedly gave Lynch a handgun. The two later returned to Nelson Street on a ‘CG’ motorcycle. While Liverpool waited in a nearby street, Lynch reportedly went to Lanferman’s residence and knocked on the front door. Lanferman opened his door and was confronted by the gunman.

At the conclusion of the trial, the jury returned a unanimous guilty verdict.
His attorney requested a probation report, but when the probation officer took the stand last Thursday, she said that Lynch had admitted to committing the offence. That sparked a dispute, since his attorney said that he did not admit committing the offence. The accused then stood and said that he is innocent; the probation officer however maintained that Lynch had confessed.

For sentencing, Justice Singh started at a base of 60 years and then added 15 years for several aggravating factors, including the use of a gun to commit the act.
However, included in the grounds of the prisoner’s appeal is that the learned trial judge erred in law when he admitted into evidence the caution statement purportedly given by the appellant. The other basis of the appeal states that the learned trial judge failed to adequately put the defence to the jury.

A date for hearing of arguments is yet to be set at the Court of Appeal.