Court of Appeal judges were considering whether to quash a manslaughter conviction after listening to a day and a half of legal arguments centring on whether the trial judge gave the correct definition of self defence.

Keniel Ingham, 29, of Rocklands Estate, Warwick, was convicted of killing Jermaine (Red) Pitcher in the course of a bloody fight outside Champion's night club on February 27, 2000.

Two other men - Ryan (Tiger) Ball and Jamal (Knolly) Robinson - pleaded guilty to manslaughter charges and were sentenced to ten years.

At the end of a trial in October, the jury found that Ingham was acting together with Ball and Robinson and was therefore equally responsible for the unlawful killing of Mr. Pitcher.

Ingham, who maintained a not guilty plea, is appealing the conviction and his 12-year sentence.

The appeal hinges on whether the trial judge gave proper directions to the jury. Ingham's lawyers, Howard Hamilton Q.C. and Larry Scott, have argued, among other grounds, that Ingham did not receive a fair trial because the judge's summation was not balanced and he misconstrued the defence's case as one of self defence.

The court heard that Ingham's testimony was similar to the Crown's case in that he acknowledged that he had held Mr. Pitcher in a bear hug before Mr. Pitcher was fatally stabbed by Ball.

Ingham's reason for holding him - that he was trying to prevent being struck again by Mr. Pitcher - was inadequately covered by the judge's summation, the defence said.

It was argued that while the judge had given the "classical" explanation of a defence of self defence, it did not apply and was not invoked in relation to Mr. Pitcher being stabbed.

Yesterday, Crown counsel Juan Wolffe insisted the trial had been fair and that the judge adequately covered the defence's case in his summation to the jury.

He went through aspects of the Crown's case against Ingham - that witnesses had testified that Mr. Pitcher was chased by three men, one wielding a knife, and that he was caught by the three men.

But the three man panel of judges drew Mr. Wolffe back to the judge's summation and whether it was adequate in explaining the implications of Ingham's testimony.

"Was he holding him to stop him from hitting him or was he holding him to allow him to be stabbed?" asked Justice Edward Zacca.

"Did the judge lay out the scenarios?"

After further questioning, Mr. Wolffe acknowledged there was no identification evidence as to who was chasing Mr. Pitcher.

"What if he was holding him to prevent being struck in the face and Ball took advantage of it?" asked Court of Appeal president, Sir James Astwood.

Mr. Wolffe went on to say that there was no evidence to support Ingham's testimony that he was struck in the face by a weapon wielded by Mr. Pitcher.

"Was that (testimony) put to the jury...?" asked Sir James. "Because if that (testimony) was so, he would be not guilty, not so?"

"The jury heard that. They simply rejected it," Mr. Wolffe replied.

"That's not the point. The question is did the judge put it to the jury?" Mr. Justice Zacca said. "There may be a strong case on behalf of the Crown but you cannot ignore the defence."

Mr. Wolffe went on to say that the judge had to give direction on self defence because it was mentioned in Ingham's lawyer's final address to the jury.

"Did he (Ingham) say 'the stabbing took place because I was defending myself and... the stabbing was proper'?" asked Mr. Justice Zacca.

"No," replied Mr. Wolffe. But he argued that the judge had "a duty to let the jury know of the legal aspects of self defence... His hands were tied."

To which Mr. Justice Zacca replied: "The judge misunderstood the defence's case. That's what happened... That seems to be the case."

Mr. Wolffe said that it was up to the defendant to say why he was defending himself. "It's not for the trial judge to impute a defence for him. To do that would be a more egregious misdirection."

Mr. Justice Zacca explained that the judge's direction on self defence would have been a "perfect summation" if Ingham had stabbed Mr. Pitcher in self defence or if Ball had stabbed him to prevent harm to Ingham.

The judges also questioned whether the trial judge properly explain the defence's case that Ingham did not act in concert with others to cause Mr. Pitcher's death and whether he properly covered the defence's testimony that he did not know Ball had a knife.

After reading sections of the trial judge's summation, Mr. Wolffe said: "It is my respectful submission that the learned trial judge properly and adequately drew a very strong nexus between the evidence in this case and the law in this case. and properly directed the jury.

"The defendant's case was properly put and done in a way which fully afforded the defendant a fair trial and fully gave the jury an appreciation of the issues in this case. It was balanced and it was fair."

Mr. Wolffe also responded to the appeal team's argument that the judge wrongfully used the word "confession" in his summation, saying the judge was referring to the prosecution's characterisation of Ingham's statement.

"Strictly speaking I would say it wasn't a confession," said Mr. Wolffe. "He makes it clear the prosecution calls it a confession."

But the panel drew his attention to another section of the summation in which the judge himself refers to the statement as a confession.

"There's no question of interpretation. It's very clear he says it is a confession and what is a confession? An admission of guilt," said Mr. Justice Zacca.

Mr. Wolffe insisted that no prejudice was caused because the jury had the statement and could determine themselves if it was a confession.

"If my Lordships are not with me on most of these points, it's my respectful submission that no miscarriage of justice was caused that would render the trial unfair," he said.

Mr. Hamilton said that the case had deserved very careful examination because the prosecution's case was very close to the defence. He added that the judge's summation covered the defence's case merely by rereading the testimony and made repeated reference to self defence. And when he did attempt to deal with "common design", the judge ended by going back to the question of Ingham defending himself.

He said the use of the word "confession" opened the way to more confusion.

"If this was a confession in the eyes of the judge - and he is confessing to holding him - he is confessing to doing the very thing the Crown is alleging. That is what makes describing it as a confession so damaging."

Mr. Hamilton continued: "In his sworn evidence he does not even know there was a knife. He can't even say if Ball stabbed him."

He said it was quite possible that the jury had convicted Ingham by rejecting a defence that was never used.

The court retired to consider their ruling.