Since the issues surrounding the removal of statues and monuments to historical figures who were involved with or profited from slavery, has become somewhat of a political hot potato both sides of the pond. It's quite interesting to look at some of the key points from the trial of the so called Colston four, who were recently acquitted of criminal damage charges after they helped bring down and dump the statue of 17th century slave trader Edward Colston into the Bristol harborside during a Black Lives Matter protest in June of last year.
At the Bristol Crown Court on January 5th 2022, all four were found not guilty by jury verdict despite each accepting their part in helping to bring the statue and it's subsequent dumping into the water.
Quote from, thesecretbarrister.com
"The defendants all admitted their part in pulling down the statue. It was accepted that Ms Graham and Mr Ponsford had brought ropes to the scene, that Mr Willoughby had climbed the statue to pass ropes around its neck and that Mr Skuse had encouraged the crowd to roll the statue into the harbour and into the water. The prosecution case was that these four defendants were acting together and jointly with others, meaning that the prosecution didn’t have to prove that each defendant personally caused damage to the statue. It was enough if a defendant deliberately assisted or encouraged others to damage it, say by providing ropes to be attached to the statue.
But it is wrong to say – as has been widely misreported – that the Defendants admitted criminal damage. They did not. Looking at our checklist above, while there was no dispute that the statue belonged to another (Bristol City Council held the statue in trust on behalf of the people of Bristol), the other elements of the offence were challenged.
Three of the defendants argued that the Colston statue had in fact not been damaged, defined as “temporarily or permanently physically harmed”; that its value had increased as a result of it having been pulled down, salvaged and restored in a museum. It follows that they did not accept intending to damage the statue or being reckless as to whether it was damaged.
But the key issue, raised by all defendants, relates to that phrase “without lawful excuse”. Because the case for all defendants was that, even if damage had been caused, it was not unlawful. And this is where things get interesting."
https://thesecretbarrister.com/2022/...u-should-know/