I'm glad you know the difference between "not guilty" and "innocent".*not guilty
Which makes your happiness about it on the nose, and premature.
If he’s innocent, sure yeehaw away. But if he’s just not guilty because there’s not enough evidence, that’s not the same thing as innocent
But you do realise that there is no finding of "innocent"?
In your scenario where he's not guilty because of a lack of evidence, he could also be "innocent".
I have acted for many people who were clearly innocent and whose charges were withdrawn due to a lack of evidence - often the lack of evidence is an even more conclusive proof of innocence than any verdict by a judge or jury.
People love to say that "not guilty" doesn't prove innocence, but what it does prove is the absence of guilt according to the law...and that is the only relevant measure of guilt, depsite the NRL's attempts to position themselves as moral arbiters.