The toppling of a statue of slave trader Edward Colston was an “unacceptable way to engage in political debate,” the Court of Appeals was told.
The bronze monument to the 17th-century slave trader was demolished during a Black Lives Matter protest in Bristol on 7 June 2020 before being thrown into the nearby harbour.
In January, four protesters who took down the statue were acquitted of criminal charges by a Bristol Crown Court jury after nearly three hours of deliberation in a trial that lasted two weeks and two days.
All four admitted they were involved but denied their actions were criminal, saying the statue was a hate crime against Bristolians.
Milo Ponsford, left, Sage Willoughby, second left, Jake Skuse, second right in mask, and Rhian Graham right, were acquitted of all criminal claims at Bristol Crown Court on Wednesday.
Rhian Graham (left), 30, who along with Milo Ponsford, 26, Sage Willoughby, 22, and Jake Skuse, 33, have been acquitted of criminal charges after the knocking down of the statue of slave trader Edward Colston in 2020 is the half-sister of pop star the Rag ‘n’ Bone Man (right)
Following the jury’s decision, Attorney General Suella Braverman referred the case to the Court of Appeals.
This gave judges a chance to “clarify the law for future cases” and would not affect the acquittals of the four.
At the Court of Appeal in London, three judges today considered the acquittal of one of the so-called Colston Four – Rhian Graham, 30.
Rhian Graham is the sister of English singer-songwriter Rag n Bone Man, known for hits such as ‘Human’ and an album that became the fastest-selling album by a man throughout the decade.
The other three are Sage Willoughby, Jake Skuse and Milo Ponsford
Tom Little QC, for the Attorney General’s office, argued that tearing down the statue was “an act of violence” involving “considerable violence”.
“Public monuments, regardless of context, cannot be damaged as they were in a democratic society and this essentially amounts to an act of violence,” he told the court.
“Property damage, such as violence against the person, is a simply unacceptable way to participate in public debate,” he continued.
He later added: ‘Acts of criminal damage, whether it be this statue, or many other statues in towns and cities across the country, (they) cannot be demolished and damaged in the way it is under the law. rights under Articles 9. 10 and 11.’
Milo Ponsford and Rhian Graham were pictured laughing and laughing outside the courtroom tonight. After the verdict was announced, Ms Graham said the defendants’ actions admitted the group was “ecstatic” at the jury’s decision.
The four defendants cheer outside Bristol Crown Court after the jury pronounced their not guilty verdict. Pictured from left to right: Sage Willoughby, Jake Skuse, Milo Ponsford and Rhian Graham
Ms Graham admitted the group was “ecstatic” at the jury’s decision, claiming they “illuminated history” by toppling the statue
Mr Little suggested that a replica of the statue could have been made or that ‘a noose could have been hung around Colston’s neck without causing any damage’.
The lawyer said that acts of violence such as this do not fall under the freedoms of conscience of the European Convention on Human Rights under Article 9, expression under Article 10 and association under Article 11.
The court heard the legal issue was whether the jury should decide whether convicting the four protesters would be a “disproportionate interference” with those established rights.
Mr. Little said, ‘We argue that the answer to that question is no.’
The lawyer argued that there are “formidable challenges” in allowing juries to consider the proportionality of convicting protesters relative to their human rights, including a lack of consistency between the different juries.
Clare Montgomery QC, on behalf of Ms Rhian Graham, said the referral to the Court of Appeals should not have happened, arguing that part of the Attorney General’s argument was “no more than a general attack on the use of juries.” ‘.
The group addressed the media in the wake of the high-profile trial
She said in written submissions: “The fact that the jury may have to weigh competing values poses no particular problems.
“Juries are often asked to pass judgment on balance in both moral and legal issues.
“Decisions about dishonesty, abuse of position, indecency and reasonable apologies often involve difficult judgment questions.
“The implied difficulty of inconsistent or unreasonable decision-making is no more than a general attack on the use of juries rather than a rationale for denying a jury trial to lead activists.”
Ms Montgomery later said the exceptions to certain human rights protections were “intended to target people who convert on behalf of totalitarian regimes or form militias” rather than “bold” protesters who refused to go through the council to have the statue removed.
“The unwillingness to go through the right channels is at the heart of the protest,” she told the court.
Mrs. Graham’s lawyer rejected the argument that material damage resulting from a protest is not covered by the convention’s human rights.
She wrote: ‘The claim that property damage in a protest context – however trivial and incidental – is violent or otherwise rejects the very foundations of democracy is unfounded.
‘The foundations of democracy are not undermined by individual actions, interference by people or property in any policy area, especially not in an area of intense social debate.’
Photos taken from outside the courtroom show Sage Willoughby, Jake Skuse, Milo Ponsford and Rhian Graham (left to right) celebrating after receiving a not-guilty verdict at Bristol Crown Court earlier this year
The court was told that Colston played an active role in the enslavement of 84,000 black people, with about 19,000 people dying on slave ships from Africa.
“The statue caused serious suffering, insult and harm to the residents of Bristol and others, including black people,” Ms Montgomery said in written contributions.
Human rights organization Liberty has intervened in the case.
Jude Bunting QC, for the group, said the Colston case was not the only one in which a jury had to assess the proportionality of a conviction following a protest and that it was “part of an established tradition”.
The attorney wrote: “The Attorney General’s wider concerns, about the possibility of inconsistency, the lack of grounds for jury rulings, the difficulty for a defendant to challenge a jury ruling on the grounds of irrationality, are in fact concerns about the jury system as a whole.
“Those concerns are exaggerated. The constitutional importance of the jury in finding facts should not be underestimated.’
The hearing for the Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett, Mr Justice Holgate and Mr Justice Saini is expected to conclude on Thursday with a decision announced later.