Murder convict challenges 43-year jail term

Twenty-eight-year-old Alvin Jones, who was found guilty of murder and slapped with a 43-year prison term, has filed an appeal in which he argues that the sentence was “startlingly inappropriate and excessive”.

He argues too that the sentence is not in keeping with guidelines set out by Guyana’s final court of resort – the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).
On December 22, 2020, Jones, also known as “Hot Skull”, was found guilty of the February 2, 2017 murder of amateur footballer Paul Daniels.
He had been on trial for the capital offence before Justice Priya Sewnarine-Beharry and a 12-member jury at the Demerara High Court.
Daniels was murdered during a robbery at Independence Boulevard, Albouystown, Georgetown.
Reports are that on the day in question, he was at his girlfriend’s home when two armed men entered the premises and relieved him of his gold chain and an undisclosed sum of cash.
As the men were escaping, Daniels chased after them, but was shot to the chest. The robbers fled the scene on separate bicycles.
Daniels was picked up and rushed to the Georgetown Public Hospital, where he was pronounced dead on arrival.
Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial court, Jones’ lawyer, Stanley Moore, SC, filed an appeal against his client’s conviction and sentence at the Guyana Court of Appeal.

While he complained of several instances of misdirection by the trial judge, Moore has particularly taken issue with the sentence imposed.
According to Moore, the 43-year prison term does not reflect an adherence to the principles and guidelines “so fully and clearly” set out in the decision of the CCJ in the Guyanese case of Linton Pompey v the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Arguing that the sentence is excessive in all the circumstances of the case, Moore submits that the sentence effectively condemns his client to incarceration for the remainder of his youthful, productive, and rehabilitative life. Further, Moore argues that the sentence fell outside the range of sentences for the offence of murder in Guyana.
“The learned trial Judge failed to direct the jury fully and properly on the defence of [Jones]. The learned trial Judge failed to direct the jury on the failure of the prosecution to disclose to [Jones] the details of several identification parades conducted by the Police,” argues the lawyer.
Moore complains that before delivering the sentence, the trial Judge did not deliver any written reason for imposing the sentence. The Senior Counsel is further contending the trial Judge misdirected the jury on the law of murder and the issue of identification evidence.
Considering this, he is of the view that his client had an unfair trial, which warrants the overturning of his conviction. The Court of Appeal is yet to fix a date for hearing this matter.