Whilst there is no doubt a police officer ended up with a fractured spine whilst trying to arrest a member of PA
The Jury did not reach a verdict of GBH and for all other charges they were found not guilty by a Jury
The defence stated the attacker had been sprayed with a chemical substance by the police, could not see properly and was trying to protect another person at the time.
This defence was considered by members of the Jury to prevent a conviction after 36 hours of deliberation
I presume the bar had not been met. Much the same as people being killed on the roads through reckless driving. In my own town a man crossing a road was run down on a crossing and killed by a speeding motorist. He went straight through the crossing with no attempt to slow down and yet there was no conviction. Intent could not be proved
I’m assuming it’s that required aspect ( given also the visual impairment ) that was not met for a conviction in the Law.
I don’t think people who accept the Law and convictions or lack thereof as they stand are stupid.
In the case of GBH we will have to wait and see if it goes back to court.
I agree the bar for intent ( as required in Law) prevents convictions and perhaps in some cases should be reconsidered whether it is appropriate to prevent some form of conviction and this case may be one of those.