The appellant appealed his convictions for two counts of uttering a threat to a police officer and one count of possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, as well as a sentence term of probation that included banishment from the City of London.
The conviction appeal argued the trial judge erred by finding no air of reality to the self-defence claim and by applying a "totally objective" test.
The Court of Appeal found that, reading the trial judge's reasons as a whole, she had considered the appellant's subjective circumstances (history with police, psychological fear) and correctly determined there was no air of reality to the self-defence under s. 34(1) or s. 34(3) of the Criminal Code.
The sentence appeal, specifically regarding the banishment term, was also dismissed as it was part of a joint submission.
