Legal loophole ‘will let off ’ Bristol vandals

VANDALS who tore down a statue of slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol before dumping it in a harbour are likely to escape prosecution due to a legal loophole, experts said last night.

The monument was toppled during a Black Lives Matter protest on Sunday, but police have not made any arrests – despite the moment being recorded on film.

The protesters involved may never be prosecuted as it is unclear who the statue belongs to and there has so far been no complaint from the owner to police. Under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 prosecutors must prove the statue ‘belonged to another’. Without an owner coming forward to confirm they did not consent to the damage, the law protects defendants who are able to argue they had an ‘honest belief’ that the owner would have consented.

Bristol City Council is investigating whether it owns the statue, but even if it does local politicians appear unwilling to prosecute. Matthew Scott, who runs the BarristerBlogger legal blog, said: ‘Normally the owner of damaged property will provide a statement to the police saying “I did not consent to the damage to my property”.

‘A prosecution for criminal damage without one would be highly unusual.’

It had been widely assumed that the Colston statue, which had stood in place for 125 years, was owned by the council.

But yesterday Bristol’s mayor Marvin Rees admitted ownership had not been ‘100 per cent established’ and the council’s legal team were trying to resolve the situation. Bristol’s Society of Merchant Venturers built the monument in 1895, but last night it said it would not be staking a claim for it or making a complaint to police.

Mr Rees previously said: ‘As an elected politician, I cannot condone criminal damage... but I am of Jamaican heritage and I cannot pretend that... it was anything other than a personal affront to me to have it in the middle of Bristol.’ One senior barrister said: ‘I think the Bristol case with the Colston statue case is dead in the water.’