Please see Styx thread on the Registered Shipmates consultation for the main discussion forums - your views are important, continues until April 4th.
Epip 2022: The Colston Four are, thankfully, acquitted -but I'm worried about a government reaction
Merry Vole
Shipmate
As part of Black Lives Matter protests in 2020 a group of young people pulled down a publicly-owned statue of Edward Colston, slave trader and philanthropist, in a public area of Bristol and dumped it the harbour. Four of them were caught on CCTV and were prosecuted for criminal damage.
A jury of 12 people found them not guilty with a majority of 11 to 1.
But the angry reactions from the 'hang em and flog em' brigade have been quick to come.
Some would have been happy if the four had received 10 year prison sentences.
Tom Hunt the vice-chairman of the Common Sense group of Tory MPs said the judgment 'set a worrying precedent for others who wish to ransack our country's past'.
I'm really worried that this government, with a large majority, will, or are already, bringing in even more draconian rules against fundamental freedoms of protest.
A jury of 12 people found them not guilty with a majority of 11 to 1.
But the angry reactions from the 'hang em and flog em' brigade have been quick to come.
Some would have been happy if the four had received 10 year prison sentences.
Tom Hunt the vice-chairman of the Common Sense group of Tory MPs said the judgment 'set a worrying precedent for others who wish to ransack our country's past'.
I'm really worried that this government, with a large majority, will, or are already, bringing in even more draconian rules against fundamental freedoms of protest.
Tagged:
Comments
Thanks,
Doubelthink, Temporary Purgatory Host
Thank you for your patience,
Doublethink, Temporary Purgatory Host
An interesting comment from the Guardian: "Tom Wainwright, representing Ponsford, suggested that the historical significance, and hence the value, of the statue had been increased by its toppling – that rather than destroying history, those on trial had “created history”, while at the same time correcting the record on Colston’s crimes". Hence there could be no case of criminal damage to answer.
It's actually been part of the development of our justice system; back at the beginning of the 19th century virtually anything from talking with your mouth full upwards carried a death penalty, and juries became reluctant to convict even in open and shut cases. This was, IIRC, one of the pressures that led to more and more offences being downgraded from capital crimes.
I think something like that happened here. By a prima facie reading of the legislation and the established facts agreed on both sides, it certainly looks to me (IANAL) like they accused could have reasonably expected to be convicted. The defence would not be something I'd like to rely on and seems to amount to "it's not a crime if you don't think it should be"
(ETA Inciting statement removed, Doublethink, Admin)
A barrister has summarised three possible legal routes by which the jury could have come to the not guilty verdict here: https://twitter.com/Barristerblog/status/1478845243340599304
If you follow the thread, he was able to check that the jury had been given a route to a verdict via a series of questions.
Oh dear @Martin54, no. I've checked with admin and this is a C7 breach. We're definitely not Ok with people advocating breaking the law. I'm afraid this does activate the Admin six weeks posting privilege withdrawal on this particular board.
Hope the other forums are fun.
Best wishes,
Louise
Epiphanies Host
Hosting off
@Martin54 To confirm, it is not acceptable to post incitements to break the law. I am suspending you from SoF for two weeks, and on return your posting privileges in Epiphanies will be suspended for a minimum of six weeks.
Doublethink, Admin
/Admin
Historical debate fine - incitements to break the law - we haven't the wherewithal to fight legal cases and it breaks C7. Please do make sure to stop short of that but otherwise feel free to have at any relevant historical debates
Ta
Louise
Epiphanies Host
hosting off
(edited to use admin phrase)
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/dec/16/colstons-firm-enslaved-the-most-africans-david-olusoga-tells-bristol-court
On the OP - I think it's not unusual for the legal goal posts to get moved or for them to try to move them when the government thinks they or 'their side' have lost something in court.
An interesting - and IMHO quite positive - comment indeed, from Tom Wainwright.
However, let me make it clear that I don't advocate similar actions in respect of other monuments or statues!
While certainly not advocating it, I could imagine a similar situation if it were a statue honouring, say, Mugabe erected in the brief period between him becoming leader of a free Zimbabwe and revealing himself to be an incompetent autocrat. The difference is that even if someone had erected such a statue it would long since have been removed, much as namings honouring Aung San Suu Kyi have largely disappeared since she started being an apologist for genocide.
And the barrister who represented at least one of the four has also commented on the subject: https://twitter.com/wainwright_tom/status/1479113018260680715
In Bolama, Guinea-Bissau, there is a statue of General Ulysses S. Grant who, it states, "solved the problem of Bolama" - that is, to the convenience of the British and Portuguese! I don't think the Africans had any say in the matter, and the statue is long gone.
What's interesting is that, when I was there in 1981, only the plinth remained; it looks as if the thing has actually been re-erected for some reason: https://tinyurl.com/2p8kfnve
No precedent has been set.
Could you expand on that a little, please? My (not a lawyer in any way) understanding was that now this verdict has been reached, future defendants accused of similar* crimes could use it in their defence.
.
*= "how similar" is, of course, a valid question. But even with a very strict interpretation of "similar", is any statue or monument safe any more so long as someone can say with a straight face that they consider it offensive or that tearing it down constitutes legitimate protest?
A jury just rules on the particular facts of a particular case, rather than the law itself or how it is to be interpreted. Any subsequent case would turn on its own set of facts and each jury would make up its own mind.
Pulling down a statue is not violence. It might be criminal damage or vandalism but it's not violence.
"Fundamental freedoms of protest" include things like marching, giving speeches, waving placards, and so on. They do not include breaking stuff. Toppling the statue of Colston is criminal damage, and not part of a "fundamental freedom" that you think is in danger.
That said, a lot of protest includes civil disobedience - knowingly breaking the law, and accepting the consequences for doing that - because the law is unjust, or to draw attention to some greater injustice. And, as has been noted, sympathetic juries not infrequently let the perpetrators off in these circumstances.
Wainwright's argument, though, is bollocks. You don't get to trash someone's stuff, and then claim that the trashing of their stuff is historically significant, and that therefore you were increasing the value of their possessions.
As above, that's not what he was arguing. Equally, I assume the testimony by Olusoga was accepted by the judge because of the argument he was making.
Here is the Guardian article referenced by @Baptist Trainfan containing a report of Wainwright making exactly this argument.
I did not intent to imply that this was the only argument that Wainright made - I have a lot of sympathy for the "it's like having a statue of Hitler outside a synagogue" argument - but this particular argument is bollocks.
If I have a statue, it is not for you to decide that my statue is improved by you vandalizing it. It doesn't matter whether, after you vandalize my statue, someone offers to purchase it from me for several times the price I paid for it. You don't get to destroy it, and then claim that my pockets are full of fish.
I think the honest answer is that it depends. If I lived back then, I might break a politician's window but I hope I wouldn't plant a bomb.
And the jury was rigged https://www.tolpuddlemartyrs.org.uk/story/oath-and-betrayal
In modern protests, it seems practically de rigueur to smash windows, cars, and the like in city centres. Protesters who make this choice believe that law-abiding protest will be ignored, whereas breaking enough stuff might scare people into doing something.
The intent to scare people into taking an action you want them to take makes it a fundamentally violent protest, even if humans aren't actually being attacked. This statement doesn't mean that the violence isn't justifiable - just that it's not "peaceful".
Of course, everything has degrees, and a protest that breaks some windows is less violent than a protest that breaks some people.
OK according to the law, or OK according to the sentiments of larger society?
I have been to a fair number of protests, and I've never seen anything get smashed or broken. Ever. Of course it happens, but the notion that it's "de rigueur" is nonsense.
Both. Well, I don't think I will be acquitted for breaking windows, because of precedents. It could be criminal damage, but citing Pankhurst etc., probably won't work.
From other reports and what Wainwright has said elsewhere it seems like the Guardian took a somewhat incidental remark of his and reported it as if it was his main defence.
This was a jury trial. This was the accused peoples' right. It has turned out to have been a prudent decision.
It is the jury, not the judge who decide whether those accused were guilty or not. There's plenty of evidence that they did what they were accused of. It was illegal. They don't seem to have made much attempt in court to deny that they did what they were accused of doing. That would probably have been a pointless exercise and merely got up the court's nose.
It has been clearly stated by a number of people that this does not set a precedent. That is right. It neither defines nor changes the law. Besides, the jury is asked a simple yes/no question. Nobody can know what they discussed in the jury room, what their reasons were or weren't. It used to be contempt of court and is now a criminal offence for a juror to tell anyone. What it does demonstrate is that there are limits, but unpredictable ones, as to how far, irrespective of the evidence, one can get a jury to convict in some controversial circumstances. There's a long history of examples going back at least to the eighteenth century. They haven't said the accused didn't do it or were innocent. Nor, despite what Professor Olusoga and others have said, have the jurors said why or what they thought. They have simply indicated that they were not willing to convict them.
The juror's oath is that "I will faithfully try the defendant and give a true verdict according to the evidence". I really don't know how I would have interpreted that if I'd been a juror in this case, but in the circumstances, I think I would have been quite prepared to interpret 'true verdict' to mean that I would have been morally entitled not to have found them guilty if I didn't think they ought to be.
This isn't the only controversial case recently and they don't all go the same way. Five people did go to prison for a violent nocturnal riot in March last year less than a ¼ of a mile from where the Colston statue used to be.
It doesn't appear to be a crime at all now. It was a peverse verdict.
*showing a deliberate and obstinate desire to behave in a way that is unreasonable or unacceptable.*
Is that what you mean?
ISTM that all due processes of law were followed correctly, though that doesn't mean to say that anyone has to agree with the verdict.
There is no reason for believing it to be a perverse verdict - i.e that the jury just didn't want to apply the law, so we'd have to assume that they believed the defendants had a valid defence, of which more information below:
https://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/news/edward-colston-statue-toppling-trial-liam-walker-represents-acquitted-defendant
There is no appeal against an acquittal.
I like Wainwright's statement, but the sentence after that is clearly wrong.
That is wrong, wrong, wrong (even without getting too concerned about your spelling). It's a basic principle that a jury, the representative of the community, is always entitled to acquit.
I think on balance I'm not keen on people posting satire sites in sensitive threads especially not when it can be taken as a dig at another poster - Louise Epiphanies Host
Please don't post things that might be legally problematic for us - Thanks! L Epiphanies Host