A couple of points to make. One is that if you include Michael Le Vell, to continue the analogy the CPS are 3-1 down. Friends who work in Manchester crown court and had seen the legal papers told me before the trial that he was clearly innocent, and that they could not understand why it had come to court. But in a way that's a good thing as if there was no trial the "no smoke without fire" mob would have had a field day, and an innocent man would have been tarred for life.
Two - regarding TOTP, the audience members had to be 16 to gain admittance, so the QPR kid would not have been committing any offence even if they had consented to him rogering them senseless over Lieutenant Pigeon's piano stool...
Its a general convention that the prosecution will go for a re-trial. If that re-trial also ends in a 'hung jury' the convention is that the prosecution doesn't seek a further re-trial (unless something 'naughty' happens such as jury intimidation.)
Personally I feel there's a difference between being found not guilty - or the case not being proven beyond all reasonable doubt - and actually having done the crime.
I feel sorry for the guy - I think the judge should have dismissed the other 2 charges or told the jury if they couldn't come to a decision then find him not guilty.
He wasn't found not guilty of the 2 original charges, they could not reach a verdict.
The double jeopardy concept disappeared in 2005. Even for acquittals - if the Court of Appeal quashes the verdict and orders a re-trial. But there has to be "new, compelling, reliable and substantial" evidence. I guess this happened because of advances in DNA analysis and that in most cases it will be the modern standard DNA evidence that is "new, compelling, etc". I think that was the case in the most obvious example, the Dobson retrial in the Stephen Lawrence case.
Comments
Two - regarding TOTP, the audience members had to be 16 to gain admittance, so the QPR kid would not have been committing any offence even if they had consented to him rogering them senseless over Lieutenant Pigeon's piano stool...
But there has to be "new, compelling, reliable and substantial" evidence. I guess this happened because of advances in DNA analysis and that in most cases it will be the modern standard DNA evidence that is "new, compelling, etc". I think that was the case in the most obvious example, the Dobson retrial in the Stephen Lawrence case.