You are throwing in a lot of straw men.
This is how I would break it down:
The defendants admitted that they intentionally damaged the property.
The judge instructed the jury that these actions met the standard for the crime of criminal damage.
The judge instructed the jury that the defendants had no legal defence under English law.
However, the jury failed to reach a verdict. We need to look logically at the possible reasons why this happened.
Presumably, the jury accepted the defendants' admissions that they carried out those actions.
Presumably, the jury accepted the judge's guidance that none of the defences they put forward were legal under English law.
So, the only logical conclusion is that the jury must have based their decision on matters that had no legal basis.
belonging to a criminal organisation
