Colston four statue-toppling case to be reviewed by Court of Appeal

The court of appeal will now review the case following the request from the Attorney General

(Picture: PA)

The statue-toppling case in which protesters pulled down the statue of Edward Colston will be reviewed by the Court of Appeal after the Attorney General‘s request.

Suella Braverman requested the case be reviewed amid fears human rights could now be used to justify criminal damage.

Jake Skuse, 33, Rhian Graham, 30, Milo Ponsford, 26 and Sage Willoughby, 22, became known as the Colston Four.

They were cleared in court in January this year for their roles in toppling the statue of the 17th-century slave trader during a Black Lives Matter protest in Bristol.

From left to right, Sage Willoughby, Jake Skuse, Milo Ponsford and Rhian Graham outside Bristol Crown Court. (PA)

The group were cleared of criminal damage after arguing a conviction would be too strong a punishment against their right to protest and freedom of expression.

Writing for The Daily Telegraph, Ms Barverman said: “The right to protest should be jealously guarded, but should not be a licence to commit criminal damage.

“Human rights should not be used to legitimise criminal conduct. Police and protesters, judges and jurors – they all need to understand where the boundary lies between protected rights and criminality. It is in the public interest to clarify the law, which is why I am making this reference to the Court of Appeal.”

Jurors were asked to decide if they believed a conviction for criminal damage was a “proportionate interference” with the defendants’ human rights of freedom of expression, thought and conscience during the trial.

In court, their legal team argued the statue of the slave owner was so offensive that it constitued an indecent display.

Ms Willoughby compared the statue with Nazism and said: “Imagine having a Hitler statue in front of a Holocaust survivor – I believe they are similar.”

In his directions to jurors, Judge Peter Blair QC said they had to balance the defendants’ human rights against the legislation contained within the Criminal Damage Act.

The Court of Appeal will now be asked to clarify the law around whether someone can use a human rights defence when they are accused of criminal damage.

The four cannot be retried unless new evidence is provided but the Court of Appeal can clarify the law and review the legal consequences it sets.

Ms Braverman concluded: “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.”