There was the initial naming of the child and then the court suppression order that he could not be named, even though his identity was already in the public arena.
There was, for a time, the order that the relationship between the boy and the accused (his mother) could not be made public, now rescinded.
Where the incident took place was widely reported. Now that fact is suppressed.
One of the more serious questions raised was whether the mother, already suffering the loss of her child, should have been prosecuted at all.
Clearly the death of a 16-month-old has to be thoroughly examined by the authorities, and the mother admitted her guilt, but the Crown does have discretion on whether to lay charges or not. What was the thinking in this case ... too serious not to prosecute?
Whatever, the legal machinations, yesterday's result would surely have pleased all. A discharge without conviction - even the prosecution had no doubt it was the right outcome.