I've heard and read just so much nonsense about this vexed question!

People on both sides are quoting some incredible reasons for their point of view.  Everything from:

No trial because the Privy Council have found him "Not Guilty"

Which is patently wrong, to

Yes another trial because otherwise he will get substantial compensation

Oh dear...  what to say about that one.

I also don't hold to no trial because you couldn't find an unbiased jury.  That's probably the case with almost any trial (if you really look at juror's presuppositions and prejudices).  The trial judge would merely have to be very precise and clear about what the jury are to base their decision on.

The real answer is actually quite simple.  If, with the facts that are currently available, the case would pass the threshold that would be applied for any brand new case, (eg.  A 70% chance of a guilty verdict or whatever the criteria currently used is), a trial should go ahead.  If not, don't bring it to trial.

As for compensation, if the case doesn't go ahead or if a new trial finds him not guilty, then he should be adequately compensated for his unjustified loss of freedom.