Criminal Note of Appeal Against Conviction:- On 13 May 2009, the appellant was found guilty after a trial at Edinburgh Sheriff Court of the following charge on indictment:- "On 31 May 2008 at …Bonnyrigg…you…did assault Marc Wilson .....and did strike him to the neck with your hand whilst holding a glass, causing the glass to break to his severe injury and permanent disfigurement". A rider was added to the verdict by the jury to the effect that the assault had been carried out under provocation. The appellant was subsequently sentenced to probation for a period of two years with certain conditions. The appellant lodged a note of appeal against his conviction on a number of grounds including inter alia:- (1) the sheriff misdirected the jury when he stated that the appellant used a weapon and this had a bearing on the jury’s assessment of whether the appellant was acting in self defence, in particular, whether the appellant had acted in a manner disproportionate to the violence the complainer had used against him; (2) the sheriff misdirected the jury in relation to self defence and ought to have directed the jury that if they accepted that the blow by the appellant was deliberate it then necessary them to consider self-defence before considering whether or not to convict the appellant; and (3) sheriff erred in law in repelling an objection made on behalf of the appellant during the trial when the procurator fiscal depute asked a question which suggested that the appellant had used a glass in order to assault the complainer and in repelling the objection the sheriff enabled the procurator fiscal depute to suggest to the appellant that he had used the glass as a weapon which again was important in the assessment of the special defence. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the charge was not to the effect that the appellant had struck the complainer on the neck with a glass and the sheriff had used language which suggested that the crime involved was more serious than it was. It was submitted on behalf of the Crown that the charge was simply a charge of an assault committed with a glass and on the basis of the evidence there was no basis for the plea of self-defence and the sheriff ought to have withdrawn the special defence from consideration by the jury. Here the court considered whether the directions of the sheriff, particularly in relation to the complainer being "struck in the neck with a glass", in light of the special defence lodged amounted to a misdirection and, if so, whether a miscarriage of justice had occurred.