Is there any point to Rewa going on trial?

Phil Taylor writes in the HoS:

Malcolm Rewa murdered Susan Burdett. No other conclusion is possible.

He was the only assailant at her Papatoetoe home on the night of 23 March, 1992, when she was battered and raped.

He expertly got in and let himself out like the cat burglar he was, as he did in his attacks on so many other woman.

We know Rewa was there because his semen was in her body. …

The detective in charge of the case, Detective Inspector Steve Rutherford, since retired, put his finger on it in the weeks after the murder, telling media: “We believe that the person who had sex with her, murdered her.”

The Privy Council panel that in March quashed Pora’s convictions for rape and murder, went this far: “The man who raped Burdett was undoubtedly Malcolm Rewa,” Lord Kerr said.

I think there is no reasonable doubt Rewa murdered her.

Solicitor-General Mike Heron, QC, has ruled out putting Rewa on trial a third time, telling the Privy Council after it quashed Pora’s convictions that “no exceptional circumstances exist to justify lifting [the] stay” put on the Rewa murder prosecution 16 years ago by his predecessor after a second jury couldn’t decide about murder.

For the sake of Burdett’s family, and for justice, we say he should rule it back in.

He is already in jail for her rape. Is the cost of a massive trial worth it, when the practical impact is nil? It would be nice for the family to have it judicially confirmed that Rewa was both her killer and rapist, but Rewa has a sentence of preventive detention for his 24 rapes and is never going to be released from prison anyway.