What gives you the authority to say she couldve/did only escape cause of the weapon.

She has 2 working hands, feet, vocal cords and teeth.

All of those can do damage.

Again, the court might be biased, it might not. Per uk law she carried an illegal weapon with the intent to use it in the situation that happened and killed someone with it. That is what happened and what is relevant for the court. The sexual assault that did happen does not nullify the charges against her.

Is it morally speaking wrong? Yea. Can the judge do something against it? Unlikely. I dont know enough about UK law to say for certain that the judge could just overrule it and set a precedent for future similar cases.

I gotta drop the politeness for a sec, you claiming that her getting a manslaughter charge would still be overkill is just downright fucking dumb. Manslaughter is accidental killing. She did intent to hurt him. She did have the LAWFUL OBLIGATION to stop when he stopped attacking her.

"Constructive manslaughter is also referred to as "unlawful act" manslaughter.[9] It is based on the doctrine of constructive malice, whereby the malicious intent inherent in the commission of a crime is considered to apply to the consequences of that crime. It occurs when someone kills, without intent, in the course of committing an unlawful act. The malice involved in the crime is transferred to the killing, resulting in a charge of manslaughter."

OR

"Voluntary manslaughter is the killing of a human in which the offender acted in the heat of passion, a state that would cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed to the point that they cannot reasonably control their emotions. Voluntary manslaughter is one of two main types of manslaughter, the other being involuntary manslaughter."

Both these charges have the "imperfect defense" subcategory - basically excessive force. Which stabbing is.

Just cause a crime does happen to you doesnt mean youre free of all consequences until the crime is over.