Luckily the case was heard at the Old Bailey, where they tend to listen to evidence and have skilled barristers with experience of these things, and then a jury makes a decision based on what they’ve heard.
Based on that, I’d say your heading is a tad misleading.
Yes I know that I am going for an evocative conversation title. Feels like it needs one.
So from here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-51707616
To me it feels like that a decent (expensive) barrister was used to prove that someone who broke the law, and knew he was doing so, got away with it.