News Every Day | 29 September 2022, 08:28

Colston statue toppling in Bristol deemed a ‘violent act’ by appeal court judge

Bristol Colston statue toppling was violent act say judges — Colston statue toppling was violent act, say judges (Picture: PA)

Following the toppling of a statue of slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol, the Court of Appeal has ruled that Human Rights cannot be used as a defence for causing significant criminal damage.

The statue was torn down and lowered into a nearby canal during a Black Lives Matter protest in 2020.

The ‘Colston Four’ were acquitted of criminal damage in court earlier this year. However, their case was referred to appeal by former attorney general Suella Braverman, who asked for clarification regarding the ‘uncertainty’ of the decision to acquit them on human rights grounds.

A range of defences were used throughout the case, one of which involved asking the Court of Appeal to consider that a conviction for damage to the statue would have been a disproportionate interference with the defendants’ right to protest under the European Convention of Human Rights.

A judge has labelled the toppling a ‘violent act’ and ruled that human rights protections were not available as a defence.

Lawyers for the four – Milo Ponsford, 26, Rhian Graham, 30, Jake Skuse, 33, and Sage Willoughby, 22 – have expressed their disappointment about the judges’ verdict.

File photo dated 7/6/2020 of protesters throwing the statue of Edward Colston into Bristol harbour during a Black Lives Matter protest rally. A ruling on legal issues arising out of the acquittal of four people who were prosecuted for pulling down a statue of slave trader Edward Colston during a Black Lives Matter protest - the so-called Colston Four - will be delivered by judges. Court of Appeal judges were told at a hearing in June that the toppling of the statue was an — The toppling of the Edward Colston statue in Bristol was labelled a ‘violent act’ (Picture: PA)

Milo Ponsford, left, Sage Willoughby, second left, Jake Skuse , second right in mask, and Rhian Graham right, accused of criminal damage over the toppling of the statue of slave trader Edward Colston, outside Bristol Crown Court. Picture date: Tuesday December 14, 2021. PA Photo. The bronze memorial to the 17th century slave merchant was pulled down during a Black Lives Matter protest on June 7 last year, before being dumped in Bristol Harbour and later recovered by Bristol City Council. See PA story COURTS Colston. Photo credit should read: Ben Birchall/PA Wire — The ‘Colston Four’ were aquitted of all charges by a jury earlier this year (Picture: PA)

The referral of the case will not affect the acquittals of the Colston Four directly, but could set a precedent for any similar incidents.

Katy Watts, a lawyer for human rights group Liberty, said the ruling was a further example of how ‘we have seen this government chip away at our protest rights’.

‘Protest is a fundamental right, not a gift from the state,” she said.

‘Today’s judgement puts a threshold on when people can enact their human rights in a legal case, and takes away vital protections that empower everyone to be able to stand up for what they believe in.’

(left to right) Sage Willoughby, Jake Skuse, Milo Ponsford and Rhian Graham outside Bristol Crown Court. They have been cleared of criminal damage for pulling down a statue of slave trader Edward Colston during a Black Lives Matter protest in June 2020. Picture date: Wednesday January 5, 2022. PA Photo. The bronze memorial to the 17th century slave merchant was pulled down during a Black Lives Matter protest on June 7 last year, before being dumped in Bristol Harbour and later recovered by Bristol City Council. See PA story COURTS Colston. Photo credit should read: Ben Birchall/PA Wire — Sage Willoughby, Jake Skuse, Milo Ponsford and Rhian Graham after being cleared (Picture: PA)

Home secretary Suella Braverman QC walks outside 10 Downing Street, following the passing of Britain's Queen Elizabeth, in London, Britain, September 9, 2022. REUTERS/Maja Smiejkowska — The case was referred to appeal court by then attorney general Suella Braverman, who sought to ‘clarify the law for future cases’ (Picture: Reuters)

During the Colston Four trial, the defence opted to be tried by a jury, and did not deny or apologise for their involvement in the incident.

Following the jury’s decision, Ms Braverman referred the case to the Court of Appeal, so judges could ‘clarify the law for future cases’.

Appeal court judge Lord Burnett ruled: ‘The circumstances in which the statue was damaged did not involve peaceful protest.

‘The toppling of the statute was violent. Moreover, the damage to the statue was significant.’

However, his words were rebuked by Rhian Graham, one of the four defendants, who responded to the ruling by claiming the removal of the statue was not a violent act but instead ‘the cathartic removal of a memorial to an oppressor of people and an abuser of power who had too long loomed over the people of Bristol’.

‘The fact that it is gone is still right for Bristol.

‘The positive impact of the toppling – for both Bristol and the anti-racism movement as a whole – can never be undone, and this judgement cannot overturn the decision made by a jury of our peers,’ she added.

Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@metro.co.uk.

For more stories like this, check our news page.