HOWARD Hughes, the St James man who in 2017 shot another man outside a club during a gangland-style confrontation, which left the victim seriously disabled, on Friday lost his bid to convince a panel of Appeal Court judges that his punishment for those offences was “manifestly excessive”. He, however, got his sentence reduced by two years.

According to the prosecution, the shooting followed on a situation which took place in June of 2017. The evidence led during the trial was that on June 17, 2017, after 11:00 pm, the victim went to a club and saw Hughes, whom he knew before as “Chubby”, and other men. He however did not acknowledge Hughes who, reportedly stung that he was being ignored, said “Yuh don’t si mi? A – A1 badness dis”.

At about 4:20 am (the morning of June 2018), the ill-fated man went outside the club only to be approached by two motor cars. Hughes and seven other men emerged from the two cars. According to prosecutors, some of the men and Hughes were armed. Prosecutors further said there was a verbal exchange between the soon-to-be gunshot victim and one of the men during which he pleaded with him not to go inside the club and “shoot up di place and shoot up innocent people”.

While he was attempting to reason with the man, prosecutors said Hughes pointed a firearm at him and shot him twice in his chest and once in his foot.

A police constable who was at the spot, witnessed the shooting and testified that he knew Hughes before, said he pulled his service pistol at that point and shouted, “Chubby, drop di gun”. He said Hughes, instead of obeying, fired two shots in his direction and fled.

The shots narrowly missed the cop but the victim consequently lost a kidney, suffered a damaged liver, pancreas, and lung.

The man, who was 22 years old at the time of the shooting, reportedly told the police under caution in one instance, that his target had received $2 million to kill him from an individual he referred to as “Gagon”.

Under caution about his attack on the cop, he further stated “all him get money outta Gagon. Two million dollars fi kill mi, and mi step to dem before dem kill mi”. He later denied making those statements.

Hughes was convicted after a judge-alone trial in the Western Regional Gun Court in St James, in July 2019, for the offences of illegal possession of firearm, wounding with intent and shooting with intent. He was subsequently sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment at hard labour for illegal possession of firearm, 25 years’ imprisonment at hard labour for wounding with intent and 15 years’ imprisonment at hard labour for shooting with intent. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently with a stipulation that he serve 20 years before becoming eligible for parole.

In an appeal filed after that ruling, Hughes, through his attorney, conceded that there was no legal basis to challenge his convictions, but maintained that the sentences were excessive and that the trial judge erred in failing to identify the respective range of sentence relevant to the particular offence and in not reducing the sentence by the two years spent in jail before trial.

The judges of the appeal in the ruling handed down Friday said they had identified as aggravating factors the fact that Hughes exited the nightclub and returned along with seven other men, some of whom were also in open possession of firearms, making it so that his possession of the firearm outside the nightclub “was not impulsive, but was deliberate and premeditated”. Another factor it said was that the firearm was used in the commission of other offences and was not recovered. Furthermore it said Hughes had a May 2017 conviction for illegal possession of ammunition, roughly a month before.

The judges however pointed out that the trial judge erred in principle in that he failed to identify a range of the sentences for each offence and a starting point within that range and also failed to expressly demonstrate the arithmetic deduction given for time served on pre-sentence remand.

“In circumstances where it cannot be objectively discerned that the appellant received a full credit for this period, then it falls to this court to make its assessment in order to ensure that the appellant receives this benefit to which he is entitled,” the judges of the appeal said. In relation to the offence of shooting with intent, however, the ruling said while the trial judge did not demonstrate that the appellant benefited from a credit of two years for the time served on pre-sentence remand in respect of that offence, Hughes is unable to benefit from such a credit because its effect would be a reduction in the sentence below the mandatory minimum period of 15 years which was imposed.

The Appeal Court further said that the trial judge erred when he incorrectly recommended that Hughes must not be eligible for parole until he had served 20 years, in relation to the sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment at hard labour for wounding with intent.

It said for those reasons the appeal against the sentence would be allowed in part and ruled that the sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment at hard labour for the offence of illegal possession of firearm be set aside and substituted by a sentence of 18 years’ imprisonment at hard labour, credit having been given for the two years spent on pre-sentence remand.

The judges further ruled that the sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment at hard labour for the offence of wounding with intent, with the stipulation that the appellant serve 20 years before being eligible for parole, also be set aside and substituted with a sentence of 23 years’ imprisonment at hard labour, credit having been given for the two years spent on pre-sentence remand.

The court however affirmed the sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment at hard labour, for the offence of shooting with intent.

It said the sentences are to run concurrently and are to be seen as beginning on July 30, 2019, the date they were originally imposed.

Hughes will serve the longest of the three sentences.