Lawyers in the trial of a Jamaican national charged with attempted murder finished their closing arguments yesterday.

And Puisne Judge Vincent Meerabux was expected to give his final directions to the Supreme Court jury today before they retire to consider their verdict.

Carlton Byfield, 25, is charged with attempting to unlawfully cause the death of his wife, Sherrylynn Byfield, unlawfully wounding her with the intent to do grievous bodily harm and unlawfully wounding her on February 8.

Crown Counsel Charlene Scott told the court Byfield's intention to kill his wife was exercised when he pulled the machete from his waistband.

Just because the goal was not realised, she continued, he started toward it which was attempting it.

And if Mrs. Byfield had not received medical attention for the injuries she received, what would have happened to her, asked Ms Scott.

Grievous bodily harm was any bodily harm which seriously interfered with a person's health and comfort, she continued.

Testimony given by doctors through the trial pointed to this, she said.

And their evidence of the three lacerations in her head showed Mrs. Byfield was wounded.

Ms Scott said jurors could infer things from the evidence they had heard as well.

Police photographs of blood on the Byfields' apartment's floor and the injuries to Mrs. Byfield inferred something had happened to her, she said.

She asked the jurors to base their decision on the surrounding circumstances.

It was reasonable to say death would be the result of using a machete on a person, she said.

If they did not believe this then surely grievous bodily harm was likely to happen if a machete was used against a person, continued Ms Scott.

However the matter was very serious, she said, and it was not a simple wounding nor wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm but attempted murder.

Defence lawyer Archie Warner said jurors had heard the evidence of how Mr.

Byfield was provoked throughout his marriage.

This had pushed his client to the breaking point, he said.

Mrs. Byfield had abused him mentally while they were together by beating him and flaunting men in front of him, said Mr. Warner.

But he stressed that he was not denying Mrs. Byfield had been seriously injured nor saying that she deserved to be.

However how had those injuries really come about, he asked.

There were only the two of them in the apartment at the time of the incident and only they could say what had happened.

The jurors could not speculate about the incident, he warned.

Nor could they speculate about Mr. Byfield's intentions, he added, as the prosecution had failed to prove what they were.

Mr. Warner said there was no evidence to satisfy that Mr. Byfield attempted to murder his wife or satisfy that he intended to wound her.

Just because a machete was used and there were some serious wounds and a lot of blood did not mean Mr. Byfield intended to kill his wife, said Mr. Warner.

If he intended to kill her do you think she would be alive today, he asked.

Mrs. Byfield said she never saw her husband hit her with the machete, he continued.

It was up to the prosecution to prove how the injuries had come about and they had not done so.

He also asked the jurors to consider the demeanour of the different witnesses which took the stand, especially the complainant and the defendant as this would help them decide who to believe.

He reminded them that Mrs. Byfield had not even wanted to testify or give a statement.

She told the court the only reason she had done so was because she thought she had to in order to receive compensation.

This made her evidence "weak, tenuous, unbelievable and unacceptable'', said Mr. Warner.

He said when the decision was made to give someone who was injured compensation, their behaviour at the time of the incident was looked at to see if it was in any way negligent.

While her testimony never mentioned provoking her husband and was consistent with the statement she had given Police, this was because provocation was considered negligence.

Under cross-examination from Ms Scott earlier, Mr. Byfield said suspicions of his wife's infidelity were fuelled by the number of times he saw her with her male friend.

He denied they were raised by people gossiping and added that his wife accused him of doing something with the women he used to talk to.

But the difference, he continued, was that he talked to their husbands too while his wife hid the fact she was going out with her male friend from him.

Mr. Byfield then admitted never going to see a counsellor despite the fact that he was stressed during his marriage.

And when asked if he trusted his wife after he said he searched her belongings and found two plane tickets -- one in another man's name -- and a letter to a lover in New York, Mr. Byfield responded: "Would you trust your husband?'' Arnold Todd