But that's what it was. You can't pretend it wasn't because it doesn't suit your narrative.At no point did I use the term miscarriage of justice.
The new evidence was presented and it became clear that there MAY HAVE BEEN a miscarriage of justice. The original verdict was quashed and a retrial was set up.
Without the new evidence there would have been no retrial. The appeal on the grounds of an unsound verdict based on the original evidence was refused.
What you seem to be saying is that YOU PERSONALLY would have come to a different conclusion to the other jurors in the first trial due to your own personal view of what constitutes rape. I'd imagine the jury were given quite clear guidance on what rape actually is in UK law.
The prosecution had to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that there was no consent. Even the possibility of consent would be enough for the judge to direct a not-guilty verdict.
The not guilty verdict relied exclusively on the new evidence.