Colston statue topplers acquitted

[SerendipityJane]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-59727161

Four people accused of illegally removing a statue of Edward Colston have been cleared of criminal damage.

Sage Willoughby, 22, Rhian Graham, 30, Milo Ponsford, 26, and Jake Skuse, 33, were charged after a monument to the 17th Century slave trader was pulled down and then thrown into the harbourside in Bristol last June.

It happened during a Black Lives Matter protest in the city.

A jury at Bristol Crown Court found them all not guilty.

During a highly publicised trial, the court heard that the statue was ripped down before being thrown into the harbour during a wave of protests triggered by the murder of African-American George Floyd by a white police officer.

The four defendants, together with "others unknown", were accusing of damaging the Colston statue and plinth of a value unknown without lawful excuse.

During the trial, Mr Skuse said he took part in rolling the statue to the docks to stage a symbolic "sentencing" of the slave trader.

The four people charged also wore clothes. Maybe it was slaves that produced their clothes they were wearing. Is that ok with them ?

@Hearwego

Read the judges summing up - it's incredibly clear.**

I don’t need to. I saw a number of people commit a criminal act on tv. The jury found them not guilty. I don’t understand how they were found not guilty.
By the way, one of them was holding a coffee cup after the court. Maybe he should be educated that the coffee beans actually derived from people on low wages in South America.
But that’s ok eh ?

I don’t understand how they were found not guilty

If you don't understand, maybe you do need to read the judges summing up. Bearing in mind it's what the jurors heard - all 12 of them - before they went and discussed the case. Admittedly out of your earshot. But then if you "don't understand" there probably wasn't much you could have usefully added to the debate. Although the jurors may have been grateful for a hot beverage.

I can't recall the exact quote now, but it goes something like : "Bloody typical ! Pay no attention to the world around you for years and then this happens ."

I'm also reminded about the quote about opinions.

There is also a difference between not understanding, and not wanting to understand.

You cannot "see a person commit a criminal act" unless it's a strict liability offence like not stopping at a zebra crossing or you have the power to read their minds.
Criminal offences in England overwhelmingly require both a guilty act and the mental state required for guilt. They also require the absence of any lawful excuse to commit the act.

Saying "I don't understand why they were found not guilty" but then saying you don't need to read the judge's summing up to the jury which explains exactly how they could have been found not guilty is...curious logic.

Saying "I don't understand why they were found not guilty" but then saying you don't need to read the judge's summing up to the jury which explains exactly how they could have been found not guilty is...curious logic.

The word "logic" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there I feel.

@limitedperiodonly

I don't think there's anything wrong with being stupid and ignorant. Refusing to accept and learn from it though...

Yes, nobody is born understanding the law of criminal damage after all. We were all ignorant of it once!

The jury consisted, as all juries do, of 12 people randomly selected from the electoral roll. We have no idea of their age, sex, ethnicity, social class or educational level. After listening to the evidence they decided the people before them were not guilty of the charge of criminal damage. Despite that some people on this thread insist they were wrong.

Would one of them explain why?

Cause they saw it on TV

I saw the moon landings. Doesn't make me a rocket scientist.

@SerendipityJane