If it had been a clear cut case of 'malicious harm with intent' then I'm sure Adkins/Cortese would have determined as much from interrogating Barnard themselves and, if it was clear cut, then they wouldn't have stood by him (which they appear to have done by virtue of him being in the squad on Saturday).
I therefore believe we can draw a relatively educated conclusion that there is a significant element of doubt in Barnard being found guilty of a serious crime.
Just my hunch.