Lawyers painted contrasting pictures yesterday of the death of off-duty corrections officer Daemon Bell as the trial of the man accused of his murder drew to a close.

In closing remarks, Alan Richards, for the Crown, told the court that defendant Ajamu Hollis had been the aggressor in the incident, leaving the scene only to return with a weapon intent on “settling” a dispute.

“He might not have had a good reason to be mad, but he was mad and he wanted to settle this argument,” Mr Richards said. “This stupid argument that didn’t need to cost a man his life.”

Charles Richardson, counsel for Mr Hollis, argued that the defendant had struck Mr Bell out of fear that he was going to be attacked and claimed that Mr Bell could have survived his injuries had doctors followed the right protocol.

“We are not saying that he is blameless,” Mr Richardson said. “But we are saying that the case presented is, at worst, manslaughter.”

Mr Hollis has denied murdering Mr Bell, 49, in an altercation on February 2, 2022, at Shelly Bay Park in Hamilton Parish.

Prosecutors said that Mr Bell was caught in the middle of an argument between Mr Hollis and the victim’s brother-in-law, Dion Ball Jr.

The court heard that after an altercation, Mr Hollis left, but returned a little more than two minutes later with a gardening hoe and, in the ensuing altercation, struck Mr Bell in the face with the tool.

Mr Richards told the jury that Mr Hollis’s version of events was contradicted by the evidence of several witnesses who had seen the incident.

He said that all four of the witnesses described Mr Hollis striking or swinging at Mr Bell twice with the garden hoe.

Mr Richards said that from evidence by a forensic pathologist, who said that the injuries he saw were likely to have been caused by a single blow, that finding was not incompatible with the witness evidence.

“He didn’t say that there definitely weren’t two blows, but he did say those injuries were most likely to be caused by a single blow.

“That’s not inconsistent with a light blow, a tap, if you will, and a more powerful second blow.”

Mr Richards added that three of the witnesses had said they had heard Mr Hollis say he would return before he left Shelly Bay Field the first time, and that Mr Bell said something similar before his death.

“He was saying that to the police officer in the hospital at the very same time that the other witnesses are still down at the scene giving their statements,” Mr Richards said.

“There is no realistic possibility of concoction there.

“This is important evidence. Our case is that on this evidence it’s clear that when he left Mr Hollis already knew he was coming back.”

Mr Richards said that the timing of Mr Hollis’s departure and return from Shelly Bay should also be considered, given that he had been gone for little more than two minutes before he returned with the hoe.

While Mr Hollis had said he made the decision to return after he discovered that he had left a lockbox in the area, Mr Richards said the story did not make sense.

“I suggest that it’s clear that he knew he was coming back when he left. He was still mad,” he said.

Mr Richards said that while Mr Hollis may not have intended to kill Mr Bell with the hoe, it was clear that he must have at least intended to cause him serious injury.

“He decided with premeditation as he left the scene to get his hoe and he came back, as promised,” he said.

Mr Richards also argued that it was clear Mr Bell died as a result of the injuries he had suffered when he was struck by Mr Hollis.

“If it were not for the injury, Mr Bell would not have needed to have treatment in the first place,” he added.

Mr Richardson, however, said that the forensic pathologist had said Mr Bell could have survived had doctors carried out standard procedure for the injury he had suffered.

Mr Richardson said that it was not the blow to Mr Bell’s face that caused his death, but asphyxiation caused by his bleeding.

“The gentleman was complaining that he couldn’t breathe properly,” Mr Richardson said.

“He wasn’t intubated. We don’t know anything about why no tube was put in. We know nothing about the decision-making process. No one has come to explain to you.”

He said the jury was entitled to consider if it was the blow from Mr Hollis or Mr Bell’s treatment that caused his death, adding: “The man was a civil servant who served his country well, and they let him drown.

“He died from asphyxiation. His lungs filled because the hospital failed to do the one thing that was standard practice. Intubation.”

Mr Richardson added that even if the jury were to decide it was the blow that caused Mr Bell’s death, they would still need to consider if Mr Hollis had acted in self-defence.

He told the court that while the stories put forward by witnesses had similarities, there were also key differences that should raise concerns about their credibility.

Mr Richardson said all the witnesses had been drinking and, while they had claimed Mr Bell was not drinking heavily, his autopsy had shown he was well over the legal blood-alcohol level for drivers in the afternoon of the incident.

He also noted that none of the witnesses had told police anything about a wooden bat at the scene until after CCTV footage showed Mr Ball pursuing Mr Hollis with the weapon.

Mr Richardson also said that none of the witnesses reported seeing Mr Bell strike Mr Hollis, despite Mr Bell acknowledging doing so when speaking with police before his death.

He added: “If they were so honest, why weren’t they honest from the beginning? If that’s the way it happened, why not say it from the beginning?”

He told the court that Mr Hollis left the field out of fear after being struck by Mr Bell and returned only when he realised that the lockbox, which contained cash and drugs for his addiction treatment, was still there.

Mr Richardson said that his client took the garden hoe to discourage those at the field from attacking him, but he was approached upon his return by Mr Bell, who was “full hot and trying to be Superman” and holding a bat.

He said: “What is he supposed to do in the moment? Just see if the guy is going to hit him? That’s not what would happen to any normal person.”

The jury is expected to begin deliberations on Friday.

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding criminal court cases. This is to prevent any statements being published that may jeopardise the outcome of that case