"then it must follow that there was no offence."
The fact that there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt to convince a jury that no offence took place means exactly that. There is insufficient evidence. It does not mean no offence took place.
It is easy to envisage "a one word against the other case" where the accused is lying but convincing and the victim is a poor witness but telling the truth and the jury brings in a not guilty case,
Not that I think that that is what happened here.
|
