This quote suggests to me..a true layman...that the judge has doubts about the verdict.If,by chance,my suspicion is correct then that brings to mind what I think is an important point.
And that is...unless I'm mistaken judges in US courts have the absolute power to declare a criminal defendant "not guilty" at any point during a trial.Not "guilty",just "not guilty".I'm not sure how often it's done...assuming that they do,in fact,have that power.
Of course Australian law is different. It may be different enough to deny that power to Australian judges.
But if they do have such authority one might wonder why it didn't happen in this case.
Of course there are several assumptions in my thinking that might be incorrect but...
But if they do have such authority one might wonder why it didn't happen in this case.
It is possible for a Judge to do this under Australian law, but it is exceptionally rare. The threshold to do it is extraordinarily high.
"A judge may direct a verdict of acquittal only if there is a defect in the evidence in the Crown case such that, taken at its highest, it will not sustain a verdict of guilty. If there is evidence, even though it is tenuous or inherently weak or vague, that is capable of supporting a verdict of guilty, the case must be left to the jury to determine: Doney v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 207; 50 A Crim R 157; [1990] HCA 51."
Otherwise, it is to be left to appeals to a higher court to make this determination, which is the situation in this case.