What Comes Around, Goes Around #2

the magistrates found beyond reasonable doubt that she was guilty (and therefore that she had perjured herself)

the appeal (a complete re-hearing, with the witnesses giving their evidence again) was before a barrister and two magistrates

the barrister, delivering the court's reasons, said “It’s clear" [from the cctv, that] "Ms Swords raised her arm with her hand carrying a number of leaflets. What’s not clear is whether the hand or arm ever came into contact with Mr Garfield’s face. How his glasses came off we cannot say. ”

this reasoning is odd … that, although the cctv shows the glasses coming off after she raised her arm, the fact that the cctv is viewing from "behind" the head and therefore does not show the actual point of contact, means it is possible they came off without any contact

but anyway, the position now is only that the original court held that there was no reasonable doubt, while the appeal court has held that there is

so it is not clear that the reporter has reported the relevant part of the judgment