No, legal mistakes were made that necessitated appeal and a retrial. The judge has an important role to play in instructing a jury, and in this case the judge botched it the first time round- I think in part there had been relatively recent changes to the Crim Code regarding self defense, and this wasn't instructed correctly. That was appealed, which is how the system is supposed to work. The appeals court judge ordered a new trial. There was no 'they' 'wanting' anything in this who were in a position to impact it. Obviously crown argued their case in the appeal, and that's what supposed to happen.
The second trial was mistrialled after a day of evidence; they lost a juror who suffered a death in the family and had too few to go on. They proceeded with the third trial nearly immediately, there was minimal delay.
Ultimately a reasonable verdict was delivered. If acting to defend property you have to behave reasonably; you exit your house, can't sneak up on someone, surprise them, and then shoot them if they haven't presented the threat to you that justifies that. Any car thief is going to fuck off at the high port the second you shout at them. They're there to take stuff, not get in a fight. Khill was armed with a shotgun and very much able to yell at the thief from a position of cover with the shotgun ready to use if needed.