It is being widely assumed (by critics) that the jury in Bristol acquitted inspite of the very clear law. We don't know why the jury acquitted but my understanding of the defences considered by the jury is it is entirely possible they acquitted because defendants had a defence 
(source doughtystreet.co.uk/news/edward-co…)
Which means this wasn't necessarily a jury just deciding that they didn't fancy applying the law, but rather a jury applying the law on the basis of the evidence they (and nobody else not in the court room) heard. The opposite of perverse.
Put it another way, the jury had plenty of defences that they could find if they wanted to, why would they ignore all that and just not bother to apply the law? It wouldn’t make any sense
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
