This is getting outside my knowledge as a curious amateur, but I believe that the legal system considers the formal charge to be the manifestation of being “put

This is getting outside my knowledge as a curious amateur, but I believe that the legal system considers the formal charge to be the manifestation of being “put in danger of life or limb,” and the justice system has a duty to resolve that fairly and expeditiously one way or the other. In a sense, the second trial after a mistrial is really a continuation of the first rather than a wholly new proceeding. > I’d be a little bit surprised if they got a case about non-serious crimes and went “just kidding, the same reasoning applies here too”. I wouldn’t be surprised at all, except at such a case making it all the way to the top. A lot of research effort goes into drafting these judgements, because they are usually quite long-lived. Any material relating specifically to the treatment of lesser crimes was likely ignored during the initial phases because it was out-of-scope. It’s not just the outcome, but also the reasoning that sets precedent. Any appellate judge is free to draw parallels between the facts here and the facts of the case they are adjudicating, especially if this case is cited by one of the parties (presumably the defence). It’s then the job of the prosecution to describe why this ruling shouldn’t apply, which feels like an extremely hard task given the reasoning presented.