Another is that there is often a public retrial of someone who would not have the protection of the courts.
There is an indication that time has been saved and a number of retrials have been avoided.
At the first trial, there were five charges; at the retrial, only one.
There is no question there about these men being sent for retrial.
They can order a retrial in the court below, put they cannot hear fresh evidence or re-try the case themselves.
It has been stated that there was a retrial and a rehearing.
It would not be right automatically to revive the original sentence, as if the retrial had never taken place.
While we must welcome the fact that there is at last a retrial, what does it amount to?
