5 ms·

So it's a non-objective definition that depends on things like when the judge ate lunch. [1] I'm more a fan of the "better a hundred guilty go free" model - in

• d1sxeyes 5y ago
  You're exaggerating a bit. It's not completely objective, that's true, but... "the retrial must be approved by the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the Court of Appeal must agree to quash the original acquittal due to "new and compelling evidence"". I think this is reasonable - there's checks and balances in place to make sure that the evidence really is 'new and compelling'. You're muddying the waters a bit with this 'better a hundred guilty go free' thing - you might as well not bother ever arresting someone then? Surely this should be tested at trial, which is exactly what will happen (it's not 'oh we found compelling new evidence so we're putting you in prison even though we found you not guilty before', it's 'we found compelling new evidence, so we're going to give a new jury the opportunity to hear the new evidence and decide if they also think you're not guilty')