Everyone has the right to self-defence, yet this right was not accorded to James. The following are extracts from the CPS site.
The Law and Evidential Sufficiency
Self-defence is available as a defence to crimes committed by use of force. The basic principles of self-defence are set out in (Palmer v R,  AC 814); approved in R v McInnes, 55 Cr App R 551:
“It is both good law and good sense that a man who is attacked may defend himself. It is both good law and good sense that he may do, but only do, what is reasonably necessary.”
As seen on CCTV the two women attacked James several times, punching him to the head and face. The women denied doing this even after seeing the CCTV in Court. There is also CCTV showing the aggressors charging at James. One of these women is seen clearly inciting the aggressors. These men were huge, one described as a ‘giant’. Their intent was obvious. It was undisputed in Court that the principle aggressor grabbed James and threw the first punch taking James by surprise. The aggressor weighed over 18 and half stone. James weighed under 11 stone. From then on James’s action were instinctive because he was severely concussed. One of the other aggressors was armed with an iron bar. His Hon. Judge Henry Globe QC stated that no explanation was offered for the injuries sustained by James.
The off duty police officer (who had been drinking throughout the day), by referring to James as the offender, caused James to be accused, judged and tried from that moment on. That fact that James was the victim and entitled to defend himself was completely disregarded.