Yes because the judges felt there was adverse publicity there is a retrial I think you will find this is a point of law
Judges ARE NOT there to see that societies expectations met ( with the exception of maybe sentencing) they are ther to apply the law AS IT IS - NOT AS SOCIETY MAY WANT
At times they do tend to apply their own interpretation on the law THIS WOULD NOT APPEAR TO BE ONE OF THOSE CASES
Going by the article the adverse publicity was in relation to the co-accused being sentenced (or found guilty) at the same time as this guys trial started.
The error was made in allowing the guy to be tried seperate in the first place or not waiting a few months for publicity to die down after the first trial before starting this guys trial.
