I cannot comment on the German system, but there are many previous precedents here in the UK.
There is no trial by jury, so you are charged with an offence and found guilty or innocent by the judge or judges. The motive is irrelevant, though perhaps might be taken into account for sentencing. If you break the law you are guilty, end of.
Incidentally, my two Last Generation friends who bunked off to Bali for a holiday rather than attend court have been found guilty, one was fined and the other sent down. The newsfeed I read didn't say more than that, but I am sure the idea of the sentence was to send a message to others who think they can flout the law.
If you're so keen to encourage more women to choose to have kids then you'd do well to get on board more thoroughly with tackling the climate crisis.
Those who choose not to will certainly be the last generation of their particular family!
Many young women are deliberately choosing not to have kids because of the very real danger presented by global heating.
If later in this century things turn out bad then dealing with this is going to be doubly difficult if you have an ageing population being carried by a smaller number of working young. Dealing with a declining and ageing population is a serious issue in its own right and doesn't seem to get much coverage. It is also more inevitable, as it takes as long time to reverse or at least stabalise the population.
Smashing bank windows - against the law.
Burning down abortion clinics - against the law.
That is the point. I was not angling for a discussion on the rights and wrongs of abortion but rather arguing for consistency. Supposing I burn down a clinic but end up blessed with a jury excusively of 12 good conservative Catholics and true, would those supporting the glass smashers be fine if such jury acquitted me on the basis they agreed with my motives?
Banks have been knowingly funding, and profiting from deliberate corporate eco-cide for decades.
And getting away with it.
The fact that a jury of 'ordinary' people can see the legitimacy of the womens actions gives me some hope.
The point is that if you acquit the women for the actions though illegal, if it ever becomes necessary to enact legislation to curb say particular use of fossil fuels, if these laws are ignored and business as usual carried on you have no grounds for complaint - they can simply say 'you didn't obey the law so why should we'. The precedent has been set.
It may be that as an act of conscience some think their actions represent a moral good even if illegal, but in that case they should still be willing to pay the penalty for breaking the law despite regarding their cause as morally justified.