The appellant, Tola Paul, was convicted of aggravated assault and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose.
He appealed on the basis that the trial judge erred in refusing to put the defences of self-defence and defence of others to the jury, finding no air of reality to these defences.
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by making factual conclusions and credibility assessments that usurped the jury's role in determining the air of reality of the defences.
The Court concluded that there was sufficient evidence for a properly instructed jury to reasonably find that the defences of self-defence and defence of others had an air of reality.
The appeal was allowed, convictions set aside, and a new trial ordered.
