‘Human rights’ is no excuse for toppling statues, appeal court rules
Protesters cannot rely on the defence for causing significant damage, such as to the Colston memorial
THE toppling of Edward Colston’s statue was not protected by human rights laws, judges have decided in a landmark ruling.
The Court of Appeal ruled that human rights were not a defence for significant damage caused during violent protests, such as the felling of a bronze statue of the 18th-century merchant in Bristol in June 2020.
Instead, the three judges, led by Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett, ruled that protesters might only “theoretically” be able to claim human rights as a defence for criminal damage if the damage was considered “minor”.
Their judgment came after the attorney-general Suella Braverman, who is now the Home Secretary, asked the Court of Appeal to review the case of four protesters cleared of toppling the memorial to Colston – whose company transported slaves – during a Black Lives Matter demonstration in the city.
Ms Braverman asked the judges to clarify the law amid concerns that the “Colston Four” verdict could set a legal precedent which would allow people to argue that their human right to protest overrode criminal damage laws.
The ruling does not overturn their acquittal but it will have far-reaching consequences for protesters who may in future use human rights as a defence when charged with violent demonstrations, be it blocking roads and oil depots or tearing down statues or memorials.
In a summary of the judgment, the court said: “The European Convention on Human Rights does not provide any protection for violent/non-peaceful conduct in the course of protest. Neither would it be disproportionate to convict someone of causing significant damage to property or damage to private property.”
Lord Burnett said: “Although this case did not involve the destruction of the statue, the damage caused was clearly significant. Pulling this heavy bronze statue to the ground required it to be climbed, ropes attached to it and then the use of a good deal of force to bring it crashing to the ground.”
He added: “The circumstances in which the statue was damaged did not involve peaceful protest. The toppling of the statute was violent. Moreover, the damage to the statue was significant.
“On both these bases we conclude that the prosecution was correct in its submission at the abuse hearing that the conduct in question fell outside the protection of the Convention.”
The judgment added: “It is theoretically possible that cases involving minor or trivial damage to property heard in the magistrates’ court may raise a question of the proportionality of conviction. In those limited circumstances, a conviction may not be a proportionate response in the context of protest.”
However, the judges said damage under £5,000 – the cut-off for dealing with a case by magistrates rather than crown court – could still be “significant”.
Liberty, the human rights group, feared the judgment set a threshold above which rights were weakened. “By placing weight on the value of an object in deciding if human rights can be taken into account, we feel that the court is shifting the balance too far away from our essential human rights,” said Liberty lawyer Katy Watts.
Raj Chada, partner at law firm Hodge Jones and Allen, who represented the four, said: “The clear view from an expert valuer, which we were prevented from relying upon in the trial, was that the value of the statue had increased exponentially after the toppling.
“The statue is still on public display as a monument to the evils of the slave trade, not as 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.”