A former nightclub bouncer has been convicted of causing grievous bodily harm to a patron by kicking him with a steel-capped boot.

Jason Harrell, 34, lashed out at Jody Feldman while he was on the ground, during a dispute over him refusing Mr. Feldman, 28, entry to Splash.

Mr. Feldman suffered concussion and a cut to his head when the kick made his head snap back and hit the sidewalk.

Harrell alleged during his Magistrates' Court trial that he was defending himself from a violent attack from an intoxicated Mr. Feldman, who grabbed his testicles.

Rejecting that evidence and Harrell's claim of self-defence yesterday, Magistrate Juan Wolffe ruled that although Mr. Feldman was "out of order," the bouncer was guilty of a "wholly disproportionate and an excessive reaction to the behaviour or conduct of the complainant."

He handed Harrell, a full-time soldier in the Regiment, a suspended sentence.

The court case has dragged on since May 8, owing to several adjournments.

In his evidence, Mr. Feldman, a Bermudian working in New York, told the court he visited the now-defunct nightclub in Bermudiana Road with a group of friends in the early hours of December 2 2006.

He left Splash to make a phone call but Harrell then refused him re-entry, which led to a dispute. Mr. Feldman admitted this was "contentious" in tone but described the bouncer's attitude as "unreasonable."

Mr. Feldman went on to tell the court: "At that point he shoved me and I fell back and hit my head on the pavement. The rest of the details are blurry. I believe I got up again and was pushed down by the bouncer and the next thing I remember was waking up at KEMH."

In her testimony, Liana Hall — a friend of Mr. Feldman — said she saw the bouncer kick Mr. Feldman as he was getting up from his hands and knees. She said he hopped onto his left foot and kicked him in the chest with his right, causing his head and whole body to snap back, with his head hitting the sidewalk with a loud crack.

The trial also heard a tape-recorded Police interview with Harrell after the incident, in which he said he and Mr. Feldman ended up on the ground with their hands around each other's necks.

"As I let go, I went to get off, he grabbed me by the testicles and then he pulled on my leg. As I turned around I believe that he was about to lunge at me as he had flipped himself over, he had his hands off the ground, it was in a forward motion. At that point I kicked him."

He described this as an instinctive kick, a "trying to regain my balance kick."

Harrell, of Cut Road, St. George's, also described how he has 13 years of experience in security work, and how he was wearing military boots, with reinforced toe-caps, at the time.

In his ruling, the Magistrate described Mr. Feldman's behaviour as belligerent and annoying, invading Harrell's personal space, getting up in his face and swearing.

"The complainant's conduct could even be described as being out of order," he noted. "However, I do not find that such behaviour by the complainant was threatening or intimidating or that the complainant was looking for a physical fight or confrontation."

He rejected the allegation from Harrell that Mr. Feldman grabbed his testicles as "incredible and unreliable" and accepted Ms Hall's version of how the kick was delivered "with a great deal of precision and force."

Prosecutor Robert Welling told the Magistrate he was not seeking a custodial sentence for Harrell, who has no previous convictions. Defence lawyer Llewellyn Peniston said Harrell is a former Aide de Camp to the Governor, has a "position of good standing" in the Regiment, and no longer works as a bouncer.

Mr. Wolffe handed Harrell a three month sentence, suspended for three months, which means he will not serve jail time unless he gets into further trouble during that period.

"This is an unfortunate matter. I do not think that Mr. Harrell is a criminally-minded or violent person and he is not one from whom society should be protected. This is simply a case where on December 2 2006 he over-reacted," he remarked.

Harrell declined to comment after the verdict, other than stating that he is unsure whether it will affect his employment with the Regiment.