A cabbie found guilty of attacking another taxi driver and causing permanent damage to his eye has had his conviction quashed in the Court of Appeal.

Puisne Judge Carlisle Greaves ruled that Robert Trew should not have been found guilty of unlawfully causing grievous bodily harm to grandfather Williston Trott because he acted in self-defence.

Mr. Trew?s lawyer Mark Pettingill said his client was ?very emotional and very thankful? after the December 18 decision. ?It really had hung over him? he told ?It was a matter of character. He had always felt that he had been the innocent victim. I?m really pleased with the outcome.?

Mr. Trew, of Bridge View Lane, Sandys, denied the attack when he appeared at Magistrates? Court In March. Magistrate Khamisi Tokunbo accepted that he was provoked into hitting Mr. Trott, 67, of Hamilton Parish, on February 3, 2005, but said the force of the two blows he delivered was excessive.

Father-of-five Mr. Trott told this newspaper in June that he suffered double vision and had forked out thousands in medical bills following the altercation outside the Fairmont Hamilton hotel with Mr. Trew.

His plastic surgeon Christopher Johnson, in a letter outlining his treatment, wrote: ?Mr. Trott?s injury was the result of a powerful blow to the head. The appearance of the face and eye will never return to its pre-injury state.?

Mr. Pettingill said the appeal was filed on the basis that Mr. Tokunbo, who fined Mr. Trew $2,000, had erred in law with regard to his findings on self-defence. ?The crux of the appeal was that he had accepted Mr. Trew?s evidence as far as the fact that he was attacked by Mr. Trott and that he had only hit Mr. Trott twice,? he said. ?The magistrate ruled that the force he used was excessive. But it?s impossible to measure to a nicety the degree of self-defence that you use.

?You can?t think: ?I have to hit this man just hard enough?. If you pick up a gun and shoot him, that?s excessive. But he was entitled to the defence. All he did was hit him back. He hadn?t started it. He hadn?t provoked it. He hadn?t wanted it in any way.?

Mr. Pettingill added: ?He had done just what was reasonable in the circumstances and protected himself without taking it too far.?

Mr. Trott said after the decision: ?All I know is I presented all my evidence and all my evidence was true. He admitted hitting me in court.?

Mr. Trew, 58, said: ?It?s a just decision. It?s something that hung over my head for a year and ten months which was ridiculous. This is something I have never experienced in my life.?