A more informed explanation of the appeal court's decision can be found in the journal Scottish Legal News

Briefly, he published information which would enable the complainants in the Alex Salmond trial to be identified, in breach of a court order to protect their identities. The reason for the order was that it was felt to be in the public interest that complainants could come forward without the fear that their involvement might be made public. If Murray were a bona fide journalist, and not merely an activist with a website, he might have been able to challange that decision in the courts, rather than resorting to repeatedly publishing information which might lead to them being identified and effectively challenging the court to take action, which it did.

His affadavit was found to be simply polemic, expressing his beliefs, opinions and selective interpretation. It was not evidence which could be admitted to a court. Although I am not a lawyer, that was also my immediate impression even from only a quick reading of it.

As for the AI articles, they are typically superficial and talk only in very general terms. This is the problem with AI - it can be very good at drawing information together from multiple sources far more quickly than a human researcher, but it is less good at drawing conclusions, especially in complex and technical matters which require judgement.

I have yet to see an AI-generated article about a topic I know something about which I would trust, and some have been dangerously misleading. I am not therefore willing to rely on AI-generated conclusions about something I am less knowledgeable about.