In a rare move that could not overturn the innocent verdicts, Suella Braverman will ask the appellants to clarify whether the defendants can rely on their human rights as a defense in the event of criminal harm. Jake Skuse, 33, Rhian Graham, 30, Milo Ponsford, 26, and Sage Willoughby, 22, were acquitted of criminal damages in January after admitting to helping crowds tear down the statue at an anti-racism rally in Bristol in 2020. They told the Bristol Crown Court They acted out of conscience, claiming that the statue was an insult and a hate crime to the black community of Bristol. The jurors returned an innocent verdict after being asked to decide whether they believed the criminal conviction was a “proportionate interference” with defendants’ rights to freedom of expression, thought and conscience – the last question on a “road to a verdict”. the judge, Peter Blair QC. In a move that substantially challenged Mr Blair’s instructions, Braverman’s office said it would ask the appellate court to clarify whether the defendants could use their human rights defense in a criminal injury case. It will also ask the court to consider whether it is up to the jurors to decide whether a criminal conviction constitutes a corresponding interference with the human rights of an accused. “The jury trial is an important guardian of freedom and crucial to that is the legal direction given to the jury,” said Braverman, who is also a Conservative MP for Fareham. “It is in the public interest to clarify for the future the legal issues raised in these cases. “This is a legal issue that is separate from the politics of the case.” But Raj Chada, who represented Skuse, suggested that there was indeed a political element in the decision to appeal the case, and especially around the timetable. “This decision by the Attorney General is extremely disappointing and should cause concern to all those who are interested in the integrity of our legal system. References like this are very rare and should be made quickly. “More than three months have passed since the jury ruled in this case,” Chanta said. “The fact that the public announcement of this decision coincides and seems to be intended to deviate from the decision of the police to issue an FPN is a matter of serious concern. [fixed-penalty] warnings against the Prime Minister and the Chancellor for illegal quarantine parties. “We seem to be seeing real-time politicization of jury trials to spark cultural wars.” During the trial in December and January of this year in Bristol court, the four defendants admitted in various ways that they carried ropes to the protest and tied them around the neck of the bronze statue, before helping the crowds to get it out of the and roll it in the port of Bristol. , where he was thrown into the water. Willoughby, a carpenter, told the court he had targeted the Colston statue “because he was a racist and slave trader who killed thousands and enslaved even more”.
