Heliport
No. The Court of Appeal could have ordered a re-trial if they had considered it to be in the interests of justice to do so.
The test for the Court of Appeal was not whether there had been some irregularity in the trial but whether the convictions were unsafe as a result. The Court can decide that despite a misdirection the convictions are safe.
However, on the facts of this case (which I know a bit about) the misdirection was a fundemental one that went to the heart of the defence.
The issue at the original trial was whether the hi-jackers acted under duress and were therefore justified in their actions. A lot of the evidence that was collected prior to the trial and in Afghanistan pre the appeal showed what a barabaric and atrocious regime the Taliban were. Certainly we and the US appeared to be satisfied that we were justified in going to war with them. The ruling of the Court of Appeal does not legalise highjacking nor make Britain a soft touch. Had the summing up not been defective the jury would have been able to consider the defence properly and fairly. Had they convicted the convictions would have been safe. If such a case were to arise again, the correct directions would be given and safe guilty or not guilty verdicts would ensue.
I agree with Moggie's earlier comment and with the benefit of hindsight wouldn't you agree that a group of jews would have been justified in hijacking an aircraft in Germany in say 1938 or 39 in order to flee to England?
Datcon
I don't know Cox but Hooper's ('Super' Hooper) reputation is as a highly intelligent, fair judge. He is no soft touch and spent much of his career at the Bar as a prosecutor.
What is a liberal judge? My dictionary defines liberal as 'open-minded, candid, unprejudiced'. Admirable (although rare) qualities in a judge wouldn't you agree??
