A longer version of the above ......
The verdict of the jury is particularly perverse as not only did the accused admit common assault in his evidence, his legal counsel invited the jury, in his speech, to convict him of both common law assault and breach of the peace (without the religious rider).
In short, both the prosecution and the defence invited the jury to convict of assault, the only difference being whether it was religiously aggravated.
They chose to ignore both speeches in regard to the assault charge!
They also chose to ignore the very clear video evidence of the attack, shown to them during the trial.
It is hard to comprehend their decision. It is easier to conclude that an element of antipathy towards the victim played a part.
