Skip to main content

Attorney general accused of launching ‘attack on juries’ in the Colston Four case, court hears

THE attorney general has been accused of launched a “general attack on the use of juries” in the Colston Four case, a court has heard. 

Four protesters were acquitted by a jury of criminal damage in January after pulling down the bronze statue of the 17th-century slave merchant at a Black Lives Matter demonstration. 

All four had admitted involvement but denied their actions were criminal, claiming the statue itself had been a hate crime against the people of Bristol.

Amid right-wing outrage at the verdict, the case was referred to the Court of Appeal by Attorney General Suella Braverman so judges could have the chance to “clarify the law for future cases,” without affecting the four’s acquittals.

She has argued that decisions on whether a conviction would interfere with a defendant’s human rights is too complicated to be left to a jury. 

Tom Little QC, for the Attorney General’s Office, told the Court of Appeal on Wednesday that pulling down the statue was a “violent act,” and “a simply unacceptable way to engage in public debate.”

The barrister claimed “violent acts” are not covered by human rights law, and that there are “formidable challenges” involved in allowing juries to consider the proportionality of convicting protesters compared to their human rights, including a lack of consistency between different juries, he added. 

But Clare Montogomery QC, for the Colston Four, said the attorney general’s arguments amounted to a “general attack on the use of juries,” and the referral should never have been made. 

She said in written submissions: “The fact that the jury may have to weigh competing values does not present particular difficulty.

“Juries are often asked to make judgments about balance in relation to moral as well as legal issues.

“The suggested difficulty of inconsistent or unreasoned decision-making is no more than a general attack upon the use of juries rather than a reasoned basis for denying a jury trial to direct action protesters.”

This was echoed by human rights group Liberty, which intervened in the case. The group told the court that jury trials regularly assess complex legal cases, such as on terrorism and murder trials, and therefore are qualified and capable to make judgments on cases like those of the Colston Four.

Liberty also warned that removing human rights considerations from protest-related offences would “lead to even greater deterrents for people to protest and stand up for what they believe in.”

The hearing is expected to conclude on Thursday with a decision at a later date.

OWNED BY OUR READERS

We're a reader-owned co-operative, which means you can become part of the paper too by buying shares in the People’s Press Printing Society.

 

 

Become a supporter

Fighting fund

You've Raised:£ 13,288
We need:£ 4,712
3 Days remaining
Donate today