Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. DPP v Bussetti mentioned this in interview. He called a witness, Clifford Smith, who had also been at the bonfire party and confirmed that the effigy depicted friends of the maker of the effigy (a Mr Bull) at the windows. 14. At the end of the hearing, when the Chief Magistrate was about to rise to consider her decision, the prosecution advocate (Mr Stott) became aware that Mr Bussetti was not the only person attending the bonfire party who had posted a video of the Grenfell Tower effigy. There had been at least one other, taken by a Mr Hancock. Mr Stott of course immediately informed the court. 15. This discovery caused a degree of consternation, since the hearing had proceeded on the basis that the video shown to the Chief Magistrate was the one which Mr Bussetti admitted having taken. The prosecution conceded that they could not prove that it was the same one. Submissions were made by counsel on each side. We are sympathetic to the difficulties which this last minute development caused to all those involved with the case, especially the judge. 16. The Chief Magistrate gave her judgment in the following terms: “1. As in all criminal cases the burden of proving the case is on the Crown and it is a high one, before I could convict I would have to be sure of the defendant’s guilt. 2. Putting this sort of video on the internet even in a private WhatsApp group could in certain circumstances constitute an offence under section 127 of Communications Act 2003 but in this case the Crown have not discharged the burden upon them. 3. I cannot be sure that the video relied on by the Crown is the one taken by the defendant, ie the message sent by the defendant is the one that has been played to me. I cannot be sure that the cut-out images on the tower were not the defendant and his friends, burnt in a bonfire joke of colossal bad taste. 4. The truly offensive racist remarks and images sent by the defendant to others on a very regular basis cannot fill the holes in the Crown’s case, as abhorrent as they are and as much as they show the sort of person the defendant is. 5. I find therefore that the elements of the case are not proved beyond reasonable doubt and I acquit the defendant. 6. Had these issues been raised at half time, I may well have upheld Mr Summers’ submission of no case. Furthermore, in the light of the recent disclosure provided after the evidence and submissions had finished, had Mr Summers raised an abuse of process argument, that too may have succeeded. 7. Once someone has been charged with an offence, there is sometimes a tendency, and I am not sure whether it is a police or a Crown Prosecution Service tendency, to take the foot off the