It really is for the court to decide before condemning the man. That the camera impinged in the controls is common ground and his statements afterwards are a matter of fact, so the key point will be the clearing of the camera from the stick and if this was a conscious act or not.
Certainly the SI opined that the camera could not free itself (but limited their testing to static conditions and not those experienced during the incident) and offered that the coincidental changes in stick movements and 'ok, ok, ok' commentary suggested a conscious recognition of the obstruction and clearance.
Notwithstanding the 'conscious removal' he has admitted negligence and his career is over.