APPEAL judges have quashed the conviction of a man who was jailed for ramming a young Clacks cyclist with a 4x4 vehicle.

Gary McKnight, 45, had been handed a four year prison term in February 2018 following a trial.

Jurors found him guilty of pursuing the complainer along a footpath and accelerated across a grass verge towards him, before assaulting him to the danger of his life, and assaulting another male.

The incident was alleged to have taken place on August 25, 2015, and had left the first victim with a broken leg and head wound.

Passing sentence at Falkirk Sheriff Court, Sheriff John Mundy also disqualified Mr McKnight from driving for eight years.

However, his lawyers believed he had been the victim of a miscarriage of justice and argued the sheriff failed to follow correct procedure when giving his final legal directions to jurors.

And earlier his month, appeal judges Lord Menzies, Lord Glennie and Lord Turnbull ruled in favour of Mr McKnight.

In a written judgement issued last Friday, Lord Menzies wrote: “We are satisfied that a miscarriage of justice has occurred and we shall quash the convictions.”

During the original proceedings, the court heard how the complainer had taken a mountain bike which had belonged to Mr McKnight’s then girlfriend.

The complainer told the court that he thought the bike had been abandoned. He said he wasn’t planning on keeping it, but wanted to use it to get to his mum’s house.

When he arrived in Menstrie, he saw Mr McKnight’s silver 4x4 approaching at speed towards him.

He said: “It drove straight at me at high speed. I got up onto the pavement and was trying to get past the railings so it couldn’t hurt me but it hit me and I remember smashing my head on the pavement and waking up 10 minutes later.”

One witness said he heard the sound of a car accelerating then a crash and then “shouting and groaning as if someone was in pain.”

Mr McKnight did not give evidence in his case, but jurors heard that during his police interview, Mr McKnight made statements which incriminated him in wrong doing.

Yet he also made statements to detectives which indicated that he had acted lawfully and had used reasonable force to stop the complainer from taking the bike.

Mr McKnight claimed he had attempted to stop the man on the bike from escaping by blocking his route. It was argued that any collision with the complainer was accidental, and so did not meet the necessary criteria for assault.

He also claimed he was acting in self-defence with the regards to the assault on the second complainer.

Lawyers acting for Mr McKnight decided to go to the Court of Criminal Appeal because Sheriff Mundy did not adequately direct the jury on what strength they could give to the defence's position.

They claimed the jury should have been addressed about their client’s differing statements to police and, as a result, Mr McKnight had been the victim of a miscarriage of justice.

The appeal judges agreed and quashed the convictions.

Lord Menzies wrote: “We consider that this misdirection has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The exculpatory parts of the appellant’s police interview were the crux of his defence.

“They were the only place in the evidence in which the appellant’s position on each charge was to be found.

“The absence of a clear direction as to mixed statements and how the jury should consider the police interview, in the context of the charge as a whole, gave rise to a real risk of confusion.”