Olympic sailor Peter Bromby and his brother John have won their appeal against convictions for assaulting and threatening their neighbour.

On Friday, the brothers had their convictions quashed after Puisne Judge Geoffrey Bell determined Magistrate Khamisi Tokunbo?s judgment failed to lay out his findings in regards of conflicting evidence offered by witnesses and did not indicate which brother was accused of which aspects of the crime.

He said that the convictions were ?unsafe? and could not stand.

The brothers, Peter Frederick Bromby, Jr. and John Mark (Bo) Bromby, were charged and found guilty in May of assaulting and threatening Henry Talbot during a property dispute.

At the time they were given an absolute discharge despite the convictions but they made the decision to appeal because they maintained their innocence.

The property dispute in question took place on May 16, 2004, when the brothers discovered that Mr. Talbot was bulldozing natural rock formations on the Gilbert?s Bay Beach in Somerset.

They agreed that they were angry when they discovered their neighbour was using the boulders to block the Bromby family?s access to the beach but said they did not assault or threaten Mr. Talbot. The brothers said they called Police before they went to confront their neighbour and were attempting to protect the access rights of all Bermudians to the beach.

In May 2005, Magistrate Khamisi Tokunbo said he was satisfied that the Bromby brothers did not approach Mr. Talbot in a spirit of peace but rather cornered him and threatened him. He said the Bromby brothers could have attempted a lawful citizen?s arrest, but instead resorted to a ?vigilante-style justice?.

Defence attorney Richard Horseman, however, argued 12 grounds for appeal last month. He said that Magistrate Tukunbo had failed to take into account the evidence of two defence witnesses. He also said the judge failed to outline what each of the men had been guilty of and which pieces of evidence he accepted as fact.

Mr. Horseman said that his broad statement ?both assaulted and threatened Mr. Talbot as alleged? did not explain how the judge had come to that decision.

Justice Bell agreed with the defence.

?With respect to the learned magistrate, this does not constitute making the necessary specific findings on crucial facts,? he said. He added that the case had two defendants accused of different offences.

?It was imperative, in this case, for the magistrate to enter in his decision what facts he found to be true and why he found them to be true,? he said. ?He did not do so and on that basis alone I would rule that the learned magistrate erred in law in coming to his decision, and that the convictions are not safe and cannot stand.?

The sentences were quashed and information on the convictions was wiped from their record.

Peter Bromby was off the Island at the time of the judgment, with permission from the courts. His brother John Bromby said he was delighted with verdict.

?I am really happy with the outcome,? he said. ?But I feel the real criminal has not come before the courts. My brother and I will be taking legal advice.?