And you illustrate the exact problem I was talking about: in most situations like the one under discussion, there is simply no way to show intent, one way or another.
Really? Simply no way? You've never seen someone do something and had a strong conviction one way or the other whether they did it by accident or on purpose? I know I have.
So I'm pretty sure witnesses, character witnesses, what the person posted on their facebook page that day, or texted their friends about the incident, that individual persons history, etc, etc, etc all could add up to a pretty convincing picture.
If you simply acknowledge that public photography is legal, all these problems and ambiguities go away.
So what is 'public photography'? Is infrared camera ok? Can I in the not to distant future install a camera on an electronic ant, and then walk it up the insides of girls pant legs at the park?
What about photography taken from public spaces into 'private ones'? Is that ok too? Can I hover about your home with drones looking for angles to see in? Or use various imaging techniques to 'see' through the walls of your house? If I get an accomplice to throw the curtains open at a mall changing room, can I photo the women inside with impunity? I'm in a public place, right?
Don't try to regulate other peoples' behavior -- much less try to make it criminal -- based on your personal preferences at any given moment.
I have a reasonable expectation of privacy. We all do. There is nothing unreasonable whatsoever about protecting that.
If you simply acknowledge that public photography is legal,
If you simply acknowledge that taking photographs where a person or persons are the primary subject requires disclosure and consent solves the problem no less neatly.