Clearly this Judgment is inconsistent, There is no rule that says the Speaker may not distribute a non-legal Judgement.
Rule 328 says that the speaker must distribute that judgement as soon as possible, but nowhere does it say that he may not distribute non-legal judgements. (So under 116 distributing non-legal judgements is fine.)
Anyway I would maintain that this Judgement was distributed in error, the Speaker failing to notice that the judgement was not a "legal judgement" as that is defined in 401.
The Appeal Panel consisted of Tim Ricketts, Nick Fortescue, and Ian Snell. The original Judgement J(10) was upheld. Tim Ricketts wrote:
I have not been following the game very much recently so I will base my judgement entirely on what I can see at this moment (this email and part of rule 401). Gordon's appeal text seems to be saying that there is no rule saying the non-legal judgements should not be distributed; therefore the original judgement should not have been distributed, because it was not legal.