A man and his girlfriend walked wearily from Magistrates' Court on Monday after learning that the teen who blinded him in one eye was given a suspended sentence and a $1,000 fine for the attack.

Idrin Izion Paynter said nothing and did not acknowledge Jamel Blakeney as Senior Magistrate Archibald Warner handed down a nine month prison sentence for the December 17, 1999 attack at the Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant on Queen Street.

The sentence was suspended for two years.

Mr. Warner had read a forensic report which suggested a large ring Blakeney, 19, of Devonshire, had been wearing "may have contributed'' to the fracturing of Mr. Paynter's left eye orbit bone, which in turn split the eyeball irreparably.

Crown counsel Wayne Caines told the court Paynter was in line at the restaurant with his girlfriend when words were exchanged with Blakeney.

After the "situation was diffused'' Mr. Caines said, Blakeney went to another area and was followed by Mr. Paynter who was shouting and pointing his finger at him.

Mr. Caines said Mr. Paynter was punched "several times'' in the face and was kicked while he was on the ground.

Under questioning later, Blakeney admitted punching Mr. Paynter, but said the older man was pointing his finger at him and had attempted to punch him.

"It was self-defence,'' Blakeney told Police. "I'm sorry he got injured like he did.'' Blakeney had no previous convictions for violence. He explained to Police there had been bad blood between the two men after Mr. Paynter had stolen money from him.

That story was confirmed by Mr. Paynter, who told Police in a statement that he was able to pick the defendant out in a Police line-up after recognising Blakeney as a man he had once sold flour to -- passing it off as cocaine.

The case was the subject of much legal argument after principal Crown counsel Dorien Taylor asked to amend the charge of assault causing grievous bodily harm against Blakeney.

Mr. Taylor explained he had only read the file last week and felt the assault warranted a more serious charge.

Mr. Warner rejected this, citing precedent in judicial decisions, adding "there is no good reason to do it'' and other prosecutors would have been "well aware'' of the case.

Mr. Taylor unsuccessfully tried to have the whole case postponed, seeking leave to go to the Court of Appeal for permission to change the charge.

With that Blakeney's lawyer, Saul Froomkin, quickly asked that the original charge be put to his client.

In mitigation, Mr. Froomkin reminded Mr. Warner that Mr. Paynter had been "an aggressor'' in the incident and Blakeney had walked away from him, only to be followed "aggressively''.

"This was a coincidental meeting which obviously went bad,'' he added. "My client should be given a chance to redeem himself.

"This matter has been hanging over his head for some time. I would strongly recommend for a suspended sentence with strong probationary terms.'' But Mr. Warner, eyeing Blakeney carefully, said: "My concern is that everybody else seems concerned about this, except him.

"To put it bluntly, it worries me. I've heard your mitigation, and the technical aspects put forth by you as a lawyer that it was provocation with a small `p'. He's said he's guilty but it's his attitude throughout. Sort of, `yes, that's what happened, so what?'.''