UK’s Bristol Statue Toppling Case to Be Referred to Court of Appeal

British Attorney General Suella Braverman said on Wednesday that the Court of Appeal will be sought to explain the law on the "uncertainty" produced by the Edward Colston statue case.

Despite their admission of involvement, four people involved in the toppling of the statue during a Black Lives Matter protest in June 2020—Milo Ponsford, 25, Jake Skuse, 36, Sage Willoughby, 21, and Rhian Graham, 29—were cleared of committing criminal damage by a jury on Jan. 5.

According to the testimony at the trial, Ponsford and Graham supplied ropes that Willoughby wrapped around the statue's neck, and Skuse provoked the crowd into rolling the statue 500 metres (1,640 feet) and hurling it into the river.

The four inpiduals, however, argued that the presence of the 17th-century slave trader's statue was a hate crime or an obscene display, and that the statue's removal was done to avoid a crime.

"Imagine having a Hitler statue in front of a Holocaust survivor—I believe they are similar," Willoughby said of the statue.

Following the ruling, which Braverman described as "creating confusion," the attorney general stated that she was "seriously evaluating" whether to seek legal clarity in future cases.

Following careful thought, she decided to refer the issue to the Court of Appeal to clarify the legislation surrounding protests, she said in a statement on Wednesday.

According to her office, the attorney general found that the case had "created confusion regarding the interplay between the offence of criminal damage and the rights relevant to peaceful protest."

The acquittals in the case will not be affected by the review.

The Attorney General's Office stated that it will seek clarification on whether someone can use a human rights defence when accused of criminal damage, and whether juries should be asked to decide whether a conviction for criminal damage is a "proportionate interference" with the accused's human rights, particularly the right to protest and freedom of expression, as the judge did in the Colston statue case.

Judge Peter Blair QC instructed the jurors in the Colston case to balance the defendants' human rights against the provisions contained in the Criminal Damage Act.

[caption id="attachment_333754" align="alignnone" width="1024"] BRISTOL, ENGLAND - JUNE 07: The toppled statue of Edward Colston lies on display in M Shed museum on June 7, 2021 in Bristol, England. The controversial bronze statue of 17th Century slave merchant Edward Colston was graffitied and pulled down during a Black Lives Matter protest one year ago. The long-term plan for the statue will be decided by a public consultation led by the We Are Bristol History Commission. (Photo by Polly Thomas/Getty Images)[/caption]

Inpiduals have the right to freedom of mind and conscience, as well as the right to express one's opinions, according to him.

"These rights protect not only attitudes like anti-racism and speech itself, but also actions associated with protest," noted Judge Blair.

"Even if their actions have a significant impact on the rights of others, they do not have to result in a conviction." It all comes down to facts and degrees."

He said limitations on human rights are permitted under laws including the Criminal Damage Act if it is “in the interests of public safety or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

The issue of human rights was the last question in the “route to verdict.”

The jury was asked if it was sure a conviction for criminal damage would be “a proportionate interference” with the defendants’ “rights to freedom of thought and conscience, and to freedom of expression.”

Jurors were told if they were sure the answer was “yes” the verdict should be guilty, and if “no” it should be not guilty.

Commenting on her decision to refer the case to the Court of Appeal, Braverman said, “Trial by jury is an important guardian of liberty and critical to that are the legal directions given to the jury. It is in the public interest to clarify the points of law raised in these cases for the future. This is a legal matter which is separate from the politics of the case involved.”