Perhaps in this case the system can be congratulated on ensuring that the defendant had a fair trial?

But perhaps not congratulated in the system's ability (and duty) to protect children and enforce the legislation in place for this?

It is a balance and I fear that from this case - it looks to be far too easy - especially if you have the money - for the defence to destroy the credibility of prosecution witnesses.

This should not be too difficult for an experienced defence to do to a child witness - under cross-examination. This perhaps is a little one-sided and - in cases like this - perhaps a more equal court contest needs to be introduced? If the defence wish only to discredit any and all prosecution under cross-examination - perhaps the defendent should then also have to be subject to cross-examination?

If that had happened in this case - I suspect the outcome may have been different.