The jury had a lot to consider and we do know what went on in there. They sat and decide he was guilty.

Juries aren't there to give entertainment tunesmith, they are there to deliberate on very serious matters under the direction but not interference of the judge. Openness can be demonstrated by the open court proceedings so anybody can consider what the jury considered.

If he has anything to say in his defence, he can always see if it amounts to grounds for appeal.

Three hours to decide an offence is both proportionate and par for the course where a defendant claims innocence. We can argue all day whether a custodial sentence was appropriate, whether he should have got a sentence that would have reflected had he committed the offences today and sent down for longer and we can argue what society has to gain incarcerating a man in his eighties. After all, there are countries in The EU such as Italy where his age would preclude prison.

However, to argue his innocence doesn't get anybody anywhere. He has been found guilty by the most fair system we have to date. Trial by jury.