I don't think you're too ignorant about how computer networking works to be able to understand that the parable with the burglary isn't relevant to this situation. Read my post above, it was probably registered as edited after you posted your response. I explain it again:
In computers it's not the same as doing burglary because the door was left unlocked, because you can end up accessing networks you didn't intend to depending on how you get the reference to them. For instance you might google and find a subpage within a site. On the front page it says "access denied", but on the subpage it doesn't say so. Have you committed a crime then? No. Similarly you might bookmark and often visit that subpage, without ever finding out the main page said "access denied". For purposes of legal security the principle is that anything you can access without being asked for a password is free to visit.
Again, no matter if this guy is considered guilty or not, those responsible for the computer security of the network are guilty of a very serious crime in not hiring proper experts at computer security to protect networks containing research for millions of dollars. It's their responsibility to their nation. I guess they just spent that budget on champagne and russian caviar representation parties. Well, in any case, no matter the guilt of the British guy, they should be tried in court for such behavior, to see if they really did hire any experts, as is their responsibility.