By LAMECH JOHNSON
Tribune Staff Reporter
A MAN set to be appointed an attorney at the public’s expense has retained his own counsel to challenge his conviction and life sentence for murdering a fast food restaurant manager after seducing and robbing him.
Simeon Bain appeared in the Court of Appeal yesterday for a status hearing regarding his previous request from the judge for help with legal representation.
However, attorney Phillip Hilton appeared on the record for the 41-year-old, explaining to Justices Anita Allen, Christopher Blackman and Neville Adderley that relatives of the convict had hired him.
On the issue of the appeal, Justice Allen told the attorney that his client’s application was out of time by three months, and that a proper application for an extension of time had not been submitted.
Mr Hilton explained that he had just been retained, however the judge would not accept his response, adding that “I’m suggesting to you, you ought to make a proper application for an extension of time.”
Mr Hilton said he would do so.
Though the trial transcripts were not yet available to the court or counsel, the attorney said he would be able to make the application without them.
The matter was adjourned to January 22, 2014.
On May 2, Bain was unanimously convicted of all the charges he faced, save attempted robbery, concerning the September 19, 2009, death of 21-year-old Rashad Morris.
Morris was kidnapped from the Charlotte Street branch of Burger King and taken to the Tonique Williams-Darling Highway branch, where he had been the manager.
He was ordered to open the safe. After failing to do so, he was stabbed in the restaurant’s parking lot before his throat was slashed.
Bain denied charges of murder, robbery, attempted robbery, housebreaking, and kidnapping.
Immediately after his conviction, the case’s lead prosecutor, Director of Public Prosecutions Vinette Graham-Allen, immediately announced the Crown’s intention to seek the death penalty.
However, on July 30, Justice Indra Charles sentenced Bain to life imprisonment on the basis that the case did not meet the “worst of the worst” threshold set by the London-based Privy Council.