The sentence was handed down in the High Court in Demerara after Smith admitted to his role in the killing. The court ordered that the period he spent on remand be deducted from the prison term.

In arriving at the sentence, the judge adopted a starting point of 36 years before deducting one-third, or 12 years, for Smith’s guilty plea. The court also considered mitigating and aggravating factors, including expressions of remorse, the devastating impact on the victim’s family, and the brutality of the attack, ultimately arriving at a sentence of 32 years.

Court documents revealed that Layne, 26, of West Ruimveldt, Georgetown, was killed on March 28, 2021, following a violent pursuit through Georgetown that ended on Leopold Street.

According to an agreed statement of facts presented to the court, Smith and others chased Layne through several city streets before cornering him. Smith was armed with a cutlass approximately 22 inches long, while another participant, Osafi Johnson, carried a knife. A female companion was also reportedly armed with a cutlass.

The court heard that Layne had been liming with friends earlier that day before leaving the area. Hours later, he was seen fleeing from his attackers. Witnesses recounted that after he fell to the ground on Leopold Street, Smith caught up with him and repeatedly chopped him.

State prosecutors described the attack as particularly savage. A post-mortem examination found that Layne sustained 17 incised wounds caused by chopping and stabbing injuries. The cause of death was given as haemorrhage and shock due to multiple wounds.

In sentencing submissions, prosecutors urged the court to take into account the extreme violence involved in the attack. The State also highlighted CCTV footage which captured portions of the pursuit and events surrounding the killing.

The court also considered victim impact statements from Layne’s relatives, who detailed the profound emotional and psychological toll his death had taken on the family.One relative recalled receiving the devastating news during the night and described how family members struggled to cope with the loss. The court heard that an aunt who helped raise Layne later died after being unable to overcome the grief caused by his death.

A probation report presented on Smith’s behalf outlined a difficult upbringing following the loss of both parents during his childhood. The report also noted that while on remand, he participated in rehabilitation programmes, including anger management and family reconciliation sessions, and expressed remorse for his actions.

Nevertheless, the court found that the seriousness of the offence, the sustained nature of the attack and its impact on the victim’s family warranted a substantial custodial sentence.With the sentence now imposed, Smith will serve the remainder of the 32-year term, less the time already spent on remand awaiting the conclusion of the matter.

Smith’s sentencing follows that of co-accused Osafi Johnson, who was previously sentenced to 32 years’ imprisonment after admitting to his role in Layne’s murder.

During public hearings in the case concerning the Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899, Guyana’s former Foreign Affairs Minister and Agent before the court, Carl Greenidge, outlined the final reliefs being sought by Guyana against Venezuela.

“In accordance with Article 49 four and article 62 of the rules of court… the Cooperative Republic of Guyana respectfully requests the International Court of Justice to adjudge and declare, one, that the 1899 award is valid and binding upon Guyana and Venezuela,” Greenidge told the court.

He said Guyana is asking the ICJ to confirm that “the boundary established by that award and the 1905 agreement is the boundary between Guyana and Venezuela.”

Greenidge further asked the court to declare that Guyana “enjoys full sovereignty over the territory between the Essequibo River and the boundary established by the 1899 Award and the 1905 agreement,” while Venezuela is obligated to respect Guyana’s territorial integrity.

Guyana also argued that Venezuela breached provisional measures previously issued by the World Court.

According to Greenidge, Guyana is seeking a declaration that Venezuela “has failed to comply with the obligations set out in the orders of 1 December 2023, and 1 May 2025.”

As part of the remedies requested, Guyana asked the ICJ to order Venezuela to “withdraw from any part of Guyana’s territory as defined under the award, including the part of Ankoko island that the award attributed to Guyana.”

Greenidge said Guyana is also seeking orders preventing Venezuela from “asserting or purporting to exercise sovereignty over any part of Guyana’s territory” or taking actions that violate Guyana’s sovereignty.

He further urged the court to compel Venezuela to revoke all laws, decrees and measures intended to annex or administer Guyanese territory.

Among the specific actions Guyana wants reversed are legislation extending Venezuela’s “legislative, executive and judicial jurisdiction” into the Essequibo, along with the dissolution of bodies such as the “High Commission for the Defense of Guyana Esequiba.”

Guyana is additionally asking the ICJ to order Venezuela to terminate “the social care plan for the population of Guyana Esequiba,” end any census activities in the territory, and stop “all military activities conducted in furtherance of Venezuela’s attempt to exercise sovereignty over, annex, administer or control any part of Guyana’s territory.”

Greenidge also asked the court to direct Venezuela to refrain from publicly teaching that the 1899 award was fraudulent or that Venezuela was wrongly deprived of the Essequibo region.

He said Guyana wants Venezuela to “withdraw from all public institutions and facilities, revoke and destroy any map depicting any part of Guyana’s territory as defined by the award, as part of Venezuela.”

The hearings at the Peace Palace in The Hague form part of the merits phase of the decades-long border controversy between the two South American neighbours. Guyana is asking the ICJ to uphold the validity of the 1899 Arbitral Award, while Venezuela continues to reject the court’s jurisdiction and insists the matter should be settled through negotiations.

Delivering Guyana’s final presentation during the third day of public hearings in the case concerning the Arbitral Award of October 3, 1899, Nandlall said the decades-long controversy carries an “existential quality” for Guyana and its people.

“For more than 60 years, Venezuela has laid claim to more than 70% of Guyana’s sovereign territory,” Nandlall told the court.He added: “Venezuela’s claim has blighted, bedeviled and burdened Guyana for the entirety of its life as a sovereign state.” According to the Attorney General, the impact of the controversy on Guyana’s development, security and prosperity cannot be overstated. “The loss of the territory claimed by Venezuela would eviscerate Guyana. Indeed, the country as we know it would cease to exist,” he said.

Nandlall stressed that despite the high stakes involved, Guyana has remained firmly committed to resolving the matter through international law and the judicial process.

“As Attorney General of Guyana, I can personally attest to Guyana’s profound commitment to the rule of international law,” he said, describing respect for international law as “both an article of faith and a source of national pride.”

The Attorney General said Guyana entered the case before the ICJ with confidence in the validity of the 1899 Arbitral Award, the United Nations Secretary General’s decision to refer the matter to the court, and the court’s impartiality.

“Since Guyana filed its application eight years ago, these proceedings have vindicated and reinforced Guyana’s confidence in each of those things,” he said.

Nandlall also accused Venezuela of repeatedly trying to prevent the court from ruling on the substantive issues in the case.

“Since the start of these proceedings, Venezuela has trained every sinew to avoid the court delivering a judgment on the merits of Guyana’s application,” he told the judges.

He argued that Venezuela’s objections regarding the Geneva Agreement have already been addressed by the court in its earlier rulings on jurisdiction and admissibility.

According to Nandlall, Venezuela is reluctant to have the merits determined because it “has no good answer to Guyana’s case.”

He said Guyana has demonstrated that Venezuela was neither deceived nor forced into signing the 1897 Treaty of Washington, which paved the way for international arbitration of the boundary dispute.

“The award was and remains valid and binding on the parties,” Nandlall stated.

“In the words of the 1897 treaty, the award constitutes the full perfect and final settlement of the boundary between Venezuela and Guyana.”

Appearing before Acting Chief Magistrate Faith McGusty at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Courts on Tuesday, Dr. Anthony outlined his involvement in the recount exercise, explaining that he served as both a PPP/C candidate and a recount agent.

This role, he said, placed him in a position to observe the handling and verification of votes as they moved from recount stations to the tabulation stage.He told the court that the recount began on May 7, 2020, at the Arthur Chung Conference Centre and followed a structured system involving 10 workstations. He explained that ballot boxes from across the country were opened and recounted at these stations, after which Statements of Recount were prepared and sent to a central area for tabulation.

Dr. Anthony said that within the tabulation room, a range of stakeholders were present, including GECOM officials, political party agents, international observers and members of a Caribbean Community (CARICOM) team overseeing the process. According to his evidence, the tabulation process involved projecting each Statement of Recount onto a screen, making it visible to everyone present. He said he used copies in his possession to check that the information being displayed was accurate.

Once the figures were displayed, Minister Anthony said, GECOM officials would read out the numbers before entering them into a spreadsheet. This spreadsheet, he explained, was also projected, allowing observers to monitor the data entry process in real time.

“I was able to see how they were entering the information on the computer, and as they entered that information, it was being displayed on the screen,” he said. He indicated that he checked the figures at each stage—comparing what was read aloud, what appeared on the projected Statements of Recount, and what was entered into the spreadsheet—and found them to be consistent throughout the process.

The court heard that each statement remained on display for several minutes, giving those present an opportunity to review the figures before the process moved on.

Dr. Anthony also described the preparation of Certificates of Recount after tabulation for each district was completed. He said he examined the figures on these certificates before signing them on behalf of the PPP/C.“I then looked at the numbers, verified that those numbers were accurate… and then signed the certificate of recount,” he said.

He confirmed that he signed certificates covering all 10 electoral districts and that his signature appears on each document. Afterward, he collected copies of the certificates and related spreadsheets, which had been stamped and signed by GECOM officials, and handed them over to the party’s Chief Election Agent, Zulfikar Mustafa, in keeping with internal procedures.

Throughout his testimony, Dr. Anthony maintained that he had a clear view of the tabulation process, including both the projected documents and the individuals entering the data.

Following his testimony, the minister was cross-examined by defence attorneys Nigel Hughes and Eusi Anderson. His testimony forms part of the prosecution’s evidence in the ongoing elections fraud trial, which continues today before the Georgetown Magistrates’ Courts.

The defendants in the matter are former Chief Elections Officer Keith Lowenfield, former Deputy Chief Elections Officer Roxanne Myers, former Region Four Returning Officer Clairmont Mingo, former Health Minister Volda Lawrence, and People’s National Congress Reform member Carol Smith-Joseph.

Also charged are former GECOM staff members Michelle Miller, Sheffern February, Enrique Livan, and Denise Babb-Cummings. The defendants face multiple charges, including conspiracy to defraud and misconduct in public office, in relation to the tabulation of votes from the March 2020 elections.

All defendants have entered not guilty pleas and were granted release on significant cash bail. At the heart of the case are claims that the defendants manipulated the tabulation process to inflate votes for the APNU+AFC coalition and deflate those for the PPP/C.