The Court of Appeals have quashed Keniel Ingham's conviction for the killing of Jermaine "Red" Pitcher, finding that the judge in his trial last October misdirected the jury.

In the ruling issued Friday, the Court also set aside Ingham's 12 year jail sentence and ordered a retrial.

"Having regard to the irregularities during the trial... we are unable to say the verdict of the jury is not unsafe," the eight page ruling stated.

Ingham, 29, of Rocklands Estate, Warwick, denied during trials last year that he killed Mr. Pitcher with Ryan Ball and Jamal Robinson.

Friday's ruling does not affect the conviction and sentencing of Ball and Robinson who pleaded guilty to the manslaughter charges.

Pitcher died of multiple stabs wounds after he was involved in a fight with Ball, Robinson and Ingham February 27, 2000 outside Champions nightclub.

The appeal turned mainly on whether the judge had properly explained to the jury the implications of Inghams' stated reasons for holding on to Pitcher while he was being stabbed.

Ingham had testified that he had held on to Pitcher during the fight in order to avoid being hit again by a weapon being held by Pitcher and that he did not know that Ball had a knife.

The judge should have told the jury that if they accepted that testimony they should find him not guilty, and it was not enough to simply explain the "classical definitions of self defence and common design," Fridays' ruling stated.

Although Ingham and his lawyers had said in court that he was defending himself, a classical defence of self defence would have meant that he was arguing that the stabbing was necessary to protect himself.

The three man court also found that the trial judge failed to point out to the jury contradictions in eyewitness accounts of the fight.

The accounts did not square up on a number of areas, the ruling pointed out: "In particular, how the fight started and between whom it started; at what stage the knife was introduced into the fight; who was wielding the knife that inflicted the injuries."

And the court agreed with Ingham's lawyers, Larry Scott and Howard Hamilton Q.C. that the judge was wrong to describe as a "confession" a February 2000 statement given by their client to the Police.

"It is a misdirection and we are unable to say what effect it would have had on the jury who returned a verdict of guilty," said the court.