I'm not so sure, he appealed twice and a jury could not find a verdict (beyond reasonable doubt) either time so it must have been a really fine line on the basis of the evidence. Obviously I wasn't there and don't know exactly what the evidence was, but if he was convicted and then two further jury trials couldn't come up with an answer there must be more to this than meets the eye.

In Scotland juries have a useful tool at their disposal, not only can they rule "guilty" or "not guilty", but they can also reach a verdict of "not proven". The latter may well be useful in England & Wales in cases such as this, where it is not entirely clear if the person is entirely innocent.

Yes that would settle this case. But as it stands now he is innocent and should be compensated.

He was not proven guilty, so he is innocent.

While that's true in criminal law, I thought claims for compensation were more akin to civil law where things are very murky.

Awarding compensation would be the same as saying the police were guilty of prosecuting an innocent man. The police are also innocent unless proven guilty, and that has clearly not happened.

I should add, I find the law to be inconsistent, counter intuitive, illogical and often completely contradictory. The inner workings are only comprehensible to those with a degree in historical fantasy and abstract sorcery. I'm sure others here have a better handle on it.

Tricky one. I lived in Hastings at the time and though I did not know the guy personally there was so much malicious gossip he could easily have been crucified on the street.
Which is his problem really, reputation.

There was a smear campaign by the police. A lot of the things that were said were started by the police and unfounded.