AAIB reports aren't supposed to be clearcut about conclusions and causes of course - that is not their purpose.
The purpose of an AAIB report is to provide recommendations which will support prevention of future accidents. In that regard, they're doing a good job, but it's still work in progress.
But, the statement about "appeared to be responding to the pilot's inputs", did seem to me clearcut in what it was saying - it appeared to be behaving as normal, but abberation couldn't be completely ruled out. A clearcut statement, not a clearcut conclusion.
Regarding the Maule pilot - I doubt that the court considered or cared about anything but the legality of the flight. It's not their job to reach conclusions about recklessness, save where being reckless is an illegal act.
G