A new trial is “unnecessary” and Mr Jones has not made a case for a new trial, the High Court has heard.
In its judgment on Monday, the court said Mr Jones had been denied a fair trial and had not presented sufficient evidence.
The judge noted that the trial judge had found that Mr Jones was innocent of all charges and found that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction.
Mr Jones was convicted in December 2018 after a four-week trial.
He was originally charged with five offences, including causing grievous bodily harm and possession of an offensive weapon.
During his trial, he said he had been acting in self defence, but the jury rejected this and convicted him of causing grievously bodily harm.
Following his conviction, he appealed to the Supreme Court and in July 2018, the Court of Appeal overturned the decision.
Justice Daniel McGowan found that the jury had wrongly rejected Mr Jones’s defence of self defence.
“It is not necessary for the defendant to present any evidence which is admissible as proof of his guilt,” Justice McGowan said in his judgment.
But he said the court had to find that Mr James was entitled to a new round of trials.
“[The] trial judge was unable to make any submissions to the court that might assist the court in reaching a decision in favour of the defendant,” Justice McGraw said.
What the court says: Justice McGowan says Mr Jones could not have been in any danger in his house.
However, the judge found that he was not acting in a way that caused Mr Jones serious injury or any harm to anyone.
His defence of “self defence” is “without foundation”, Justice McGrwane said.
Mr Jones has appealed against the Supreme court’s decision to overturn the trial and a retrial.