Top judges throw out human rights defence used by Colston mob

THE toppling of slave trader Edward Colston’s statue was a ‘violent’ act not covered by human rights laws, top judges ruled yesterday.

The Court of Appeal decision – a major victory for ministers – undermines a key defence used by activists cleared in January of tipping the 9ft bronze statue into Bristol harbour.

Government officials feared the protesters’ claim that their actions were protected by the European Convention on Human Rights could have led to a ‘Vandals’ Charter’.

The judges’ decision is a triumph for new Home Secretary Suella

Braverman, who launched the appeal in her previous role as Attorney General. The ruling will not affect the not guilty verdicts for the protesters.

But the decision, delivered by Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett, is expected to make it more difficult for protesters to be cleared in future. Lord Burnett said: ‘Although this case did not involve the destruction of the statue, the damage that was caused was clearly significant.

‘Pulling this heavy bronze statue to the ground required it to be climbed, ropes attached to it and then the use of a good deal of force to bring it crashing down.

‘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. On both these bases, we conclude that the prosecution was correct in its submission... that the conduct in question fell outside the protection of the convention.’

The European convention protects the right to protest and freedom of expression. But Lord Burnett said it ‘does not provide protection to those who cause criminal damage during protest which is violent or not peaceful’.

The memorial to the 17th century slave trader was targeted during a Black Lives Matter protest in 2020.

In January this year, four protesters were cleared of criminal damage at Bristol Crown Court. They admitted their involvement but denied their actions were criminal.

Their defence teams successfully argued the presence of the statue was a hate crime and it was therefore not an offence to remove it.

Yesterday’s ruling examined the case of protester Rhian Graham, 30. Mrs Braverman referred the case to the Court of Appeal so judges could ‘clarify the law for future cases’.

Raj Chada, of law firm Hodge Jones and Allen, who represented the protesters, said after the ruling: ‘In our view, the evidence at the trial was that the toppling was not done violently. The statue is still on public display as a monument to the evils of the slave trade, not as an obscene glorification of a slave trader. It is a shame this is the Attorney General’s focus rather than the multiple crises facing this country.’

Katy Watts, a lawyer for human rights group Liberty, said the ruling ‘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’.

She added: ‘We are disappointed the court said human rights are not always linked to acts of protest.’

‘Damage was clearly significant’