Well I can give you the answer, but that doesn't explain what actually happened and actually opens a whole raft of other questions as well.
It came down to a defence of Claim of Right, this means if a defendant has "a belief that [an] act is lawful, although that belief may be based on ignorance", in other words if you truly believe in what you are doing and you believe you are not breaking any laws, the court must find you not guilty. Although it does seem to be more detailed than that, I assume that when you are acting on your belief, you must also be trying to right a wrong, so to speak, you action must be to correct an injustice, or illegal activity.
This means the 3 were easily found not guilty as they were passionate in their belief, and believed that they were not committing a crime, because their act of bring down the spy base was to save lives in Iraq. Saving human lives is the greater good over costing the country $1million and temporarily incapacitating the base.
The big question is now that this case has set a precedence, who will use it for what 'cause' next?
I spoke with one of the 3, Adrian Leason this morning.
Discover Simple, Private Sharing at Drop.io