Re: So in summary
That's one interpretation. The other realistic scenario is that she accessed the files out of curiosity, even though she knows she is not allowed, even though she knows she's breaking the law. Only after being caught did she provide that argument to provide an air of legitimise. The simple fact is if she wanted to ensure no mistrial due to prior or personal knowledge. A 5 minute phone call to the Court house administrative staff would have sufficient. They probably have specific processes to follow in situations like these. Instead she trawled through case files and court documents with impunity
If any other official had done a similar thing, or accessed family or friends records even out of curiosity, particularly a Police officer would the courts have returned the same results? Or would there have been a push for a trail and imprisonment recommended to send a message to others? If so , then why does her being a judge become the exception to the rule.
Due to this decision every Police Officer, judicial official, sheriff and certain JP's now have a legal argument if ever caught. Likewise, the defence in this case have a whole raft of technical legal arguments that they are now armed thanks to her interference.