Jason Ellis John, 30, whose death sentence was overturned and a retrial ordered, was convicted yesterday of manslaughter and will be free in five years.

John and his friend Mark Teeluck were found guilty in July 2000 of the murder of a butcher and were sentenced to hang.

John appealed his sentence and conviction because the jury at that trial was not asked to consider his previous good character. A retrial was ordered in 2005.

A 12-member jury yesterday found John not guilty of murdering 19-year-old Narvin Nandlal but guilty of the lesser count of manslaughter.

His five years in prison will be with hard labour.

In passing sentence in the First Assize Court in San Fernando, Justice Herbert Volney said he took into consideration the 12 years John spent in custody since being arrested and charged with killing Nandlal on December 12, 1997.

Teeluck, in August last year, had his death sentence commuted to life imprisonment after he and three other death row inmates filed a constitutional motion against the Prisons Commissioner, the Registrar of the Supreme Court and the Attorney General on June 13, 2005.

The State’s case, as led by attorney Jennifer Martin, is that Nandlal and his uncle, Armanath Moonilal, had left home early to buy cattle, sheep and goats in the Penal and Santa Flora areas, when they met Teeluck, who told them he had two bulls to sell.

They were taken to Oilfield Road where Nandlal followed Teeluck into some bushes. There they were joined by John who, along with Teeluck, robbed Nandlal of $200 and planassed him.

Teeluck and John then chopped Nandlal about his head, face and neck.

Volney said yesterday the sentence of the court must send a message that there is a price to be paid for wrongdoing.

’I do not think, you having spent this amount of time in custody before being convicted of manslaughter, that it would serve any useful purpose to send you to jail for an extended amount of time,’ Volney said.

’You paid a heavy debt already for your crime. But I must deter you from ever venturing on that side of the law.’