Renwick Alexander, called ‘Bumpy’ was on Monday given a second chance for a fair trial as the Chancellor of the Judiciary, Yonette Cummings, set aside his previous conviction and sentence, and ordered that he be granted a retrial.

The now 65 year old man was sentenced to 56 years imprisonment in 2014, for the murder of his childhood friend, 55-year-old Carl Thomas called ‘Dog’, in 2010.

His counsel, Attorney Nigel Hughes, argued on his behalf before Chancellor, Justice of Appeal, Dawn Gregory, High Court Judge, Justice Brassington Reynolds, and a courtroom filled with relatives of the appellant.

Hughes argued on several grounds in his written submissions, but he particularly addressed and expounded on two of those grounds which he deemed most substantive; 1) the trial judge failed to put defence to the jury and 2) the trial judge only spent two paragraphs addressing the appellant’s defence.

In putting over his oral arguments to the court, Hughes highlighted instances in the high court trial, which suggest that the trial judge did not pay much emphasis to the issue of self-defence, which was the principal defence of the accused during his trial. It also suggests that the judge did not adequately guide the jury on the attention that should have been paid to the testimony of Alexander.

In the State’s defence, Attorney Toshana Lake said to the court that on the issue of self-defence, while examining the defence case, there was no mention of him acting out of self-defence.

But referring to particulars in his statement, the chancellor highlighted that self-defence was inferred.

After presenting arguments, the court went to a 10 minute recess and Chancellor Cummings returned with the ruling.

She stated that they considered the grounds of the appeal that the defence of the appellant was not adequately put and they have found much substance on that ground. She further noted that they are of the view that the trial judge erred in not putting the defence of self-defence to the jury, which was a live issue for their determination.

However, Chancellor Cummings also noted that the Court of Appeal cannot of itself determine what the verdict of the jury would have been in the circumstances; therefore, the appeal was allowed.

A retrial will occur for the next sitting at the Demarara assizes.