

Not familiar with the specific law in question, but for a lot of laws intent and knowledge at the time of crime matter. Eg the difference between manslaughter and murder is a difference in attitude.
I could plausibly see that in this case there is not enough evidence to determine what the mind set was, while the physical action still undoubtedly took place.
Eg in Germany showing the Nazi salute or displaying a swastika are illegal, except for artistic or educational purposes. A case could be constructed in which a defendants intent when showing either the gesture or the symbol could not be clearly deduced. This not enough evidence exists wether a crime was committed, even though the physical action that would constitute the crime undoubtedly happened.
Could be a similar thing is at play here.

Cool. How many oil billionaires do you have amplifying your messaging? Because if it’s less than two I’m afraid your opinion matters less than Gardiners.