It’s written in a confusing way because it is propaganda and editorializing instead of an impartial report. I’d recommend searching for a version of the story from a neutral site instead of this feminist agitprop.
No, the article isn’t trying to be confusing. It’s confusing because of the story itself: The guy is a deviant who’d been exposing himself, etc. But, the judges ruled that this one thing he did - filming women in public - was legal, even though he was getting up close and zeroing in on certain body parts without the women’s consent.