Man gets 5 years for stabbing DJ to death at birthday celebration

A 23-year-old man has been sentenced to five years’ imprisonment for the 2023 killing of popular local disc jockey and father of two, Brian Pitam, known as “DJ Viper”, after the High Court ruled that a combination of youthfulness, remorse, and the circumstances surrounding the fatal altercation warranted significant sentence reductions.

The sentence was handed down on Wednesday by Acting Chief Justice Navindra Singh in the Demerara High Court, following Dwayne Thomas’s guilty plea to manslaughter.
Thomas, a resident of Laluni Village along the Soesdyke–Linden Highway, had initially been indicted for murder but pleaded guilty in October to the lesser offence of manslaughter after agreed facts were prepared by the prosecution and signed by the accused. A probation report and prison report were subsequently ordered ahead of sentencing.
Pitam, 28, was fatally injured during a violent confrontation outside a family birthday celebration at Laluni on January 8, 2023. Evidence before the court revealed that Pitam was chopped several times during the incident and later died from his injuries.
According to Police reports, Pitam, a former Kaieteur Radio employee, was attending a birthday party with his 51-year-old father-in-law when an altercation erupted shortly after 21:00h. The court heard that Pitam intervened during the confrontation and was brutally attacked. His left thumb, index finger, middle finger, and wrist were severed, and he sustained a deep chop wound to the back of his neck. He was rushed to the Georgetown Public Hospital Corporation by public-spirited citizens, but was pronounced dead on arrival. Thomas was the only person arrested and charged in connection with the offence.

Sentencing Submissions
During sentencing submissions, Thomas’s attorney, Madan Kissoon, urged the court to depart from the maximum sentence, pointing to several mitigating factors. Counsel told the court that Thomas had turned himself in, cooperated fully with investigators, pleaded guilty at an early stage, and had no prior convictions. He also highlighted Thomas’s conduct while on remand, describing him as respectful, well-behaved, and willing to learn a trade. Kissoon further noted that his client was just 19 years old at the time of the offence and extended an apology to Pitam’s family on his behalf.
Prosecutors Simran Gajraj, Christopher Belfield, and Geneva Wills, however, emphasised the violent nature of the killing and the devastating impact on Pitam’s family. They told the court that Pitam was attempting to defend his father-in-law when he was attacked and left behind two young children, both of whom will now grow up without their father. The prosecution submitted that no mercy was shown during the attack and urged the court to impose a sentence that reflected the seriousness of the offence.

Victim impact statements
Victim impact statements were tendered by Pitam’s family and read into the record. His mother, Tracy Douglas, told the court that she bears the pain of her son’s death every day, saying her life had changed forever since losing him. Pitam’s father, John Pitam, spoke of the constant reminders of his son and the responsibility he now carries in supporting his grandchildren. Pitam’s wife, Yazeeda Bacchus, said her children were still struggling to come to terms with the reality of growing up without their father and asked the court for justice.
When given the opportunity to address the court, Thomas, who appeared tearful and visibly emotional, stood clutching a testimonial Bible and turned toward the family of the deceased. “From the bottom of my heart, I am sorry for what I did. Please forgive me,” he said, as he broke down in tears.

Delivering sentence
Before delivering his sentence, Justice Singh questioned Thomas about his account of the events leading up to the fatal confrontation. Thomas told the court that he was allegedly slapped by Pitam’s father-in-law during the celebration and left the area. He said he later found himself on the roadway, where he was followed by the father-in-law and Pitam, and another confrontation ensued.
In his ruling, Justice Singh described the incident as deeply unfortunate and criticised the idea that anyone felt entitled to discipline another adult. He noted that it was alleged Thomas had been behaving in a disorderly manner and was pulled off his motorcycle but stressed that “nobody had the right to discipline anyone.”
The Judge also remarked that when he examined Pitam’s father-in-law’s statement, there was no mention of a prior fight or anyone being charged at the outset, leading him to believe that something may have occurred before matters escalated. “When I read Pitam’s statement, he did not say that anyone charged him or that there was a fight prior,” Justice Singh observed, adding that the absence of such details suggested the situation developed rapidly and tragically.
“It’s wrong what happened, but you can’t pretend how it started,” Justice Singh said. “The one who suffers the most isn’t always the one in the right.” He questioned why the father-in-law returned to the roadway following the initial confrontation and noted that Thomas should have gone to the Police instead. The Judge characterised the matter as one involving young men acting impulsively, stating, “We are dealing with young boys.”
Justice Singh found that Thomas was genuinely remorseful, noting his emotional apology in court and his conduct while on remand. He also accepted that Thomas had been under the influence at the time of the incident and had displayed very favourable prison conduct since his incarceration.

Sentencing
In calculating the sentence, Justice Singh adopted a starting point of 20 years’ imprisonment. He then deducted six and two-thirds years for the early guilty plea, four years for favourable probation and prison reports, two and one-third years for remorse, and a further two years for Thomas’s youthfulness and the circumstances surrounding the offence. The total deductions amounted to 15 years, resulting in a final sentence of five years’ imprisonment, less time already spent on remand.
Following the sentencing, Pitam’s family told the media that while they were dissatisfied with the outcome, they accepted the court’s decision. “We are not comfortable with it, but that is the law,” Pitam’s father said.