These elements stand out, to me, from the Mirror’s piece:
”After the jury returned its not guilty verdicts, Norris, entered guilty pleas to three charges of making indecent images of children of categories A, B and C, one count of possessing prohibited images of children and a charge of possessing an extreme image depicting a person engaging in sexual activity with an animal.”
And, the Judge seeing his tactics (in delaying the plea) plainly for what they were:
“He [the Judge] added: “It’s pretty blatant to me that you decided not to enter guilty pleas (earlier) as these pleas would have gone in front of the jury of the other matters.”
This guy / his solicitor manipulated the Jury into giving him the benefit of the doubt by delaying his plea. Which meant the jury didn’t hear the abuse elements when deciding on giving him the benefit of the doubt on the indecent exposure charges.
So he traumatised the eleven year old girls (twice - successive days) with his original (alleged) offending, then subjected them to the further trauma of having the court process and ultimately being disbelieved by the jury.
The judge saw him for what he is. It’s a travesty that the jury weren’t given the same opportunity.