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.
