THE toppling of slave trader Edward Colston was a “violent act,” the Court of Appeal has ruled, in a decision that campaigners warn could weaken protest rights.

The judgement states that four protesters who were acquitted after tearing down the bronze statue at a Black Lives Matter demo in Bristol in June 2020 should not have been able to invoke their human rights as a defence. 

Human rights defences should only be considered by courts in protest-related cases if the damage is “minor” and “low-value,” the ruling states, for example where the damage is temporary.

However, in the case of the Colston statue, the court ruled that the damage was “significant” and “violent,” and therefore fell outside of the protection of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

In a ruling today, the Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett said that the convention “does not provide protection to those who cause criminal damage during protest which is violent or not peaceful.”

The four defendants – Jake Skuse, Rhian Graham, Milo Ponsford and Sage Willoughby, collectively known as the Colston Four – were cleared of criminal damage at Bristol Crown Court in January this year.  

The case was latterly referred to the Court of Appeal by then-attorney general Suella Braverman for clarification on whether defendants can cite their human rights as a defence in a case of criminal damage.

Liberty, which intervened in the case in January, said Wednesday’s judgement means the Colston Four might have been convicted had they been tried now. 

Liberty lawyer Katy Watts 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.”

Raj Chada, partner at Hodge Jones & Allen, who represented the four, said he was disappointed by the judgement. “In our view, the evidence at the trial was that the toppling was not done violently,” he said. 

“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 that this is the attorney general’s focus rather than the multiple crises facing this country.”

Rhian Graham, one of the Colston Four, said that he did not feel disheartened by the judgement, which does not reverse the acquittal.
 
“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,” he said.