It was, if you listened to those ill-informed about the facts, going to be a case about castle doctrine and how far someone can go to defend their home, their family and themselves.

A petition circulated online calling for the Attorney General to "RELEASE Benjamin Batterham from custody WITH NO CHARGES NOW!" garnered more than 113,000 signatures before it closed.

READ ALSO:

"Homeowners should be able to defend their families from criminals who break into their homes - and Benjamin should be released now," the petition urged.

But the trial of Benjamin Batterham was never about self-defence.

In fact, the legal defence hardly rated a mention during the two-week trial.

Mr Batterham was entitled to chase and restrain Mr Slater in an effort to effect a citizen's arrest, but the case was not about how far one can go when defending their property or themselves.

It was about an intruder who broke into a house at 3am and then fled when he was discovered.

And it was about the sprint and a subsequent struggle to make a citizen's arrest and how that may have combined with the health conditions that Mr Slater had when he broke in the house - the pre-existing heart disease and obesity - and the large dose of methamphetamine he ingested in the hours before.

"There was much talk when Mr Batterham was first arrested by interested people who came up with concepts like "a man's home is his castle, he has the right to do what he wants when someone breaks into his home"," Mr Terracini told the jury during his closing address.

"If you read that material it is all nonsense."

Justice Desmond Fagan, after the jury had delivered their not guilty verdict, noted that while the case had focused on the actions of Mr Batterham, that concentration of public attention had distracted from a "matter of real importance"; the dangerously adverse effects of chronic ice use.