Well no, it can be dangerous, look at this already:
With a trial there is always a chance he can get off with a technicality because of stupid human rights and loopholes in the law. It gives people contemplating does such heinous crimes hope they may actually be able to get away with it.
Well no, that's not what that story pertains to at all. In fact, they deserve credit for removing a lay-judge who had a clear bias (and would have had to attest to having no bias to get the position in the first place).
If we start deciding who gets the right to a fair trial it is a very slippery slope indeed, who gets to decide and on what. Powers like that are very rarely used as intended and in fact often grow exponentially to cover more and more.
If he gets off on a technicality (which i'll be amazed at) then it will no doubt lead to sweeping reforems in their legal system.
To deny someone the right to a free and fair trial because you think they're guilty is wrong (irrespective of whether they are guilty or not).