LancsGordoRoad
Vital Champions League
The discussion should be around the principle and long term repercussions. The principle is simple - the jury must be sacrosanct whether we like the decision or not.
On the one hand the government can always amend a law and on the other the defendant can appeal - this is the right balance and we must defend it.
The judiciary or executive must never be allowed to summarily overturn a jury's decision or we would be in a dictatorship. The exception of course is in the appeal process which is pointed purposely in the defendant's favour.
Arguing for a court or executive override if you dont like the decision puts one in bed with other legal systems that the same person would politically not agree with.
A discussion, brought about by an appeal, would be a discussion on points of law, not a discussion on disliking the jury`s decision. As you say, jury verdict is sacrosanct - unless it`s not possible to have a jury - as in recent N/Ireland history.
An appeal by the A/General wouldn`t be an attempt to overturn the jury verdict - the verdict stands. But, if there is concern that points of law may not have been interpreted as they should have, then a successful appeal, on points of law, would prevent the same (possibly) incorrect interpretation being allowed to stand in a future (similar) trial.