I thought he was shafted because he used privileged information ?
Rather for how he obtained information not for what he said?
From what I gather from the a quo judge, it was primarily the use / abuse of his former position that seems to have been the issue.
As a former officer he had certain duties, including to shut up about a case he was involved in: the McCanns have the right to the presumption of innocence (which they have always had) and even if a case had come to court, his spoutings could have prejudiced the right to a fair trial.
His argument is that he was technically a "free citizen" three days after the AG report and even if it transgressed police regulations, the transgression was a minor matter compared to his constitutional right to freedom of expression.
PT law seems to be changing all the time... They seem to be moving towards greater freedom of the press to expose corruption / greater accountability in the public sphere in practice, yet accusations made by simple citizens is still a bit of a foggy area.