You had me until "PC ****e", Joseph, at which point you demonstrated that you don't get the point. Maybe one day you'll be a suspect charged with something for which the mob is clamouring for your scalp. Then you'll learn the point the hard way. (I think CC would agree with this point.)
Anyway, I reckon that in this case there's a chance that the charges won't be proven, whether or not the suspect is suffering autism and depression. I don't know the specific charges laid, but if an element of the offences charged is, as suggested by the news reports, the endangerment of life, the prosecution is going to have to prove that life was, in fact, put in danger. (Yes: I realise it's silly to rely on news reports, but that's the only source I have about the nature of the charges laid.)
Hoax MAYDAY? How does that involve the endangerment of life?
If the life of the SAR responders who responded to the hoax MAYDAYS were put in danger, it would follow that their lives are put in danger every time they respond to a real MAYDAY.
Hoax ATC instruction to 'go around'? (This was the implication of the ABC report on the hoax ATC instructions.) How does that involve the endangerment of life?
A pilot of an aircraft on approach can always elect to go around, and the Tower knows this and is prepared for it. The Tower can always instruct an aircraft on approach to go around, and pilots of those aircraft know this and are prepared for it.
Whilst it would, of course, be possible to issue a number of hoax ATC instructions that, in combination, would create very real dangers of collision if not an actual collision, did that actually happen in fact in this case? Remember: The response of the usual spin doctors was the usual smooth rhetoric about no risk to safety, nothing to see here, move on.