I also find it a tad troubling that both the Attorney General and Head of Government have felt compelled to comment on a verdict while the complete process; i.e the appeal provisions, is incomplete. There is a reason why the legislative and judicial branches are separate. The Crown can only appeal a jury verdict on a point of law, and it is way above my pay grade what the scope of 'point of law' means. However, it might not be inconceivable that the Crown could try to argue that, by their comments, the AG and Government have expressed a position of the legislative branch that the law is flawed and that the verdict should be overturned. Who knows.
There is no question that the concept of peremptory jury challenges (turning down a prospective juror without reason) needs to be reviewed, but we will never know if a differently composed jury would have ruled any differently. Often, the media and court of public opinion often forget the concept of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' seems to be forgotten.
If it feels so compelled, the government should simply propose an amended law - that's their role.