Wilfred (Oopie) Ming Jr.

Sentencing him on Thursday, Puisne Judge the Hon. Mrs. Justice Wade said a clear signal had to be sent to the community.

Mrs. Wade told the Supreme Court the "horrible'' case had deprived Bermuda of two "potentially productive'' citizens.

For Ming was now dead -- and Burgess had to face several years in custody, she said.

Earlier, Burgess told the court: "I would like to say I am sorry to the Ming family, my family, and the entire community for my actions.'' Dressed smartly in a grey-green suit, the 31-year-old, of Turkey Hill, St.

George's, showed no obvious emotion as he was sentenced.

Some family members and friends shook his hands as he was led from the courtroom.

At an earlier hearing, jurors unanimously convicted Burgess of manslaughter, but found him not guilty of murder.

During a trial lasting a week and a half the court heard how Burgess was involved in a fight with Ming Jr. at the Canterbury Bar and Grill on September 10, 1994.

The pair became embroiled in an argument that involved name calling and anti-gay slurs, and began fighting on the steps near the Water Street tavern's downstairs entrance.

Jurors heard Burgess pulled a knife from a pouch on his waist and Ming received two cuts to his chest.

He was pronounced dead at the King Edward VII Memorial Hospital close to midnight.

On Thursday, Crown Counsel Mr. Brian Calhoun and Ming's attorney Mr. Delroy Duncan gave final submissions to Mrs. Wade.

While Mr. Calhoun argued for the maximum penalty, Mr. Duncan suggested a six-year prison term would be just.

Mr. Calhoun said Burgess had been carrying a "lethal'' knife clearly designed to inflict injury.

"It was not a knife for whittling wood ... It was designed as a weapon of aggression.'' Urging Mrs. Wade to hand down a deterrent sentence, Mr. Calhoun said: "Knifing incidents in this community are becoming too commonplace I respectfully submit.'' In conclusion, Mr. Calhoun said Mrs. Wade should take into account the design and nature of the weapon used in the killing, and the fact that Ming was unarmed.

Mr. Duncan said Mrs. Wade had to consider, among other things, who was the aggressor in the dispute, to what degree he was being aggressive, and how much provocation there was.

Another factor was how much Burgess had had to drink, although this was not a key plank in the defence's case.

Mr. Duncan said there were three bases on which the jurors could have reached their verdict.

One was that Ming's death was an accident by virtue of gross negligence and reckless disregard for life; the defendant could have been provoked by Ming; and Burgess acted in self-defence.

Mr. Duncan suggested Mrs. Wade accept the first basis -- the most "favourable'' one to his client.