It sounds like they are confusing Hacking with Cracking.
http://www.geek.com/forums/topic/hacking-and-cracking/
In this context, I’m not sure there is a functional difference between a cracker and a hacker.
The person is publicly declaring he has the necessary skill set to do either, and that’s what the argument came down to: Did he have the ability, and was he likely to do more damage to the company with what was on his computer, then cover the tracks? He says he did and he was, so it was reasonable to take him at his word.
This case covers some novel ground because, as the article states, it doesn’t meet the legal test for a restraining order. Maybe the Judge thought that a declaration of “being a hacker” was sufficient historical behavior?