Sign Up for our Free Newsletter
menu
Solicitors Journal Homepage
  • Home
  • News
  • Digital Edition
  • Practice Notes
    • Area of Law
      • Agricultural
      • ADR & Mediation
      • Asylum & Immigration
      • Aviation
      • Bankruptcy and Insolvency
      • Charities
      • Children
      • Clinical negligence
      • Commercial
      • Competition
      • Construction
      • Conveyancing
      • Costs
      • Crime
      • Data Protection
      • Discrimination
      • Education
      • Employment
      • Energy
      • EU
      • Expert witness
      • Family
      • Financial services & Tax
      • Health & Safety
      • Human rights
      • Inquest
      • Insurance
      • Intellectual property
      • Legal Aid
      • Litigation
      • Maritime
      • Media
      • Mergers & Acquisition
      • Pensions
      • Personal injury
      • Police & Prisons
      • Private client
      • Procedures
      • Professional negligence
      • Property
      • Public Law
      • Regulation
      • Residential
      • Road traffic
      • Vulnerable Clients
    • Management
      • Business Development and Marketing
      • Career development
      • Covid-19
      • Education & Training
      • Equality & diversity
      • Ethics and Compliance
      • Finance
      • Human Resources
      • Knowledge management
      • Leadership
      • Legal services
      • Marketing
      • Pro bono
      • Professional indemnity
      • Regulators
      • Risk & Compliance
      • Technical legal practice
      • Technology
      • Wellbeing
  • Opinion
  • Business
  • International
  • Interview
  • More
    • About
    • Contact Us
    • Subscribe
    • Newsletter
    • FAQ
    • Guide to Authors
    • Media Pack
    • Site Map
  • Contact Us
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Cookie Policy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Follow us:
    Twitter
    LinkedIn
© 2023 Solicitors Journal in partnership with the International In-house Counsel Journal | Picture Credits: Freepix, Unsplash and by permission of the authors
Professor Thomas

Professor Thomas

LewisNottingham Law School
Quotation Marks

… the court [urged] prosecutorial discretion be ‘exercised carefully … with a clear eye on the proportionality of prosecution’

Criminal damage and protest law

Wed Jan 25 2023Opinion
Criminal damage and protest law

Professor Thomas Lewis examines the effect of the Colston Four case

The Court of Appeal has ruled on a charge of criminal damage - where the damage caused is significant, and/or is caused by violence to property, there is no need for the court to engage in a separate analysis of whether a conviction would be in breach of human rights.

The Colston Four

The case – Attorney General’s Reference (No. 1 of 2022) [2022] EWCA Crim 1259 –concerned the trial at Bristol Crown Court of the ‘Colston Four’ who had been acquitted of the criminal damage to a statue of the seventeenth century slave-trader Edward Colston during Black Lives Matter protests in June 2020 – leading some sections of the press and certain politicians to question the correctness of the jury’s verdict, since the facts of the case were undisputed.

The trial judge had asked the jury whether they were sure that convicting the defendants would be a proportionate interference with their Convention right to, among other things, freedom of expression (Article 10). This prompted the Attorney General to seek clarification on the extent to which human rights must be taken into account by a court on a charge of criminal damage arising from public protest.

The court was at pains to stress, in addition to the human rights argument, several other defences had been put before the jury which could have led to the defendants’ acquittal, and it was therefore impossible to say which had been persuasive. Moreover, and in any event, as an Attorney General’s reference, the court’s judgment could not affect the jury’s verdict.

The effect of DPP v Ziegler [2021] UKSC 23   

Clare Montgomery KC, counsel for one of the Four, drew support from the Supreme Court’s judgment in DPP v Ziegler [2021] UKSC 23 that the offence of obstruction of the highway, caused by peaceful protest, did require a separate fact-specific proportionality assessment be undertaken. But the Court of Appeal held Ziegler did not lay down a rule of general application. This question, rather, depends on the specific characteristics of the criminal offence in question.

The Court of Appeal reviewed the Strasbourg case-law relating to protests around public monuments in which criminal convictions had been secured, and Article 10 found to have been engaged. It was noted these cases concerned minor defacements, (e.g. spray-painting) which, coupled with often very severe penalties, resulted in breaches of Article 10. It held this case law did not support the argument that violently caused and/or significant damage to public monuments could fall within the protective scope of the ECHR. Accordingly, since Convention rights were not engaged, in a Crown Court trial, these questions should not be left to the jury.

Different views

The court did, however, recognise in cases involving ‘minor or trivial damage’ to public property there was a possibility a conviction for criminal damage would not constitute a proportionate response. Such cases, the Court suggested, would arise in the Magistrates’ Court, since the ‘threshold of “significant damage” would be crossed a long way below the statutory divide’ as to mode of trial for criminal damage. However, it should be noted s50 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 makes criminal damage to a ‘memorial’ - no matter what the monetary value, and therefore including even very minor damage - potentially triable in the Crown Court, with its attendant greater sentencing powers. Section 50 was passed explicitly to enable heavier sentences to be passed in cases where the monetary value of damage to monuments was very low, e.g. the graffitiing of the statue of Winston Churchill in Parliament Square with the words ‘Is A Racist’ during protests in 2020. It appears such minor-damage protest cases will now require a separate human rights analysis.

Conclusion

In any event, it will be incumbent upon the trial court (Magistrates’ or Crown) to determine whether the damage, when not caused violently, is ‘significant,’ in order to be able to decide whether a separate proportionality exercise is required. This grey area will no-doubt cause uncertainty, and possibly lead to future challenge. Perhaps because of the difficulties of negotiating this area, the court issued a plea to prosecutors, urging prosecutorial discretion be ‘exercised carefully… with a clear eye on the proportionality of prosecution and conviction.’ Clearly, dealing with these issues upstream in this way would be a desirable outcome.

Thomas Lewis is a Professor at Nottingham Law School, Nottingham Trent University: ntu.ac.uk/law

Tags:
AdvertisementAdvertisementAdvertisementAdvertisementAdvertisementAdvertisementAdvertisementAdvertisement
Latest News

Parents and carers to be given new employment protections

Fri May 26 2023

Committee finds plans to level up the country risk failure due to funding concerns

Fri May 26 2023

Government consults on enforcement mechanisms for animal health and welfare offences

Fri May 26 2023

Government expands legal aid eligibility

Thu May 25 2023

Council of Europe identifies serious concerns affecting minorities in the UK

Thu May 25 2023

ONS finds international migration to the UK hit new high in 2022

Thu May 25 2023

Government consults on plans to reduce reporting burdens on businesses

Wed May 24 2023

Committee report finds government not taking harms from alcohol seriously enough

Wed May 24 2023

Committee seeks views on the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill

Wed May 24 2023
Featured
A closer look at the trademark dispute between retail giants Lidl and Tesco
FeatureThu May 18 2023
A closer look at the trademark dispute between retail giants Lidl and Tesco

Angela Jack dissects the recent ruling in Lidl Great Britain Ltd & others v Tesco Stores Limited & others [2023] EWHC 873 (Ch)

The UK maternity care crisis: £5bn in avoidable damages claims
FeatureThu May 18 2023
The UK maternity care crisis: £5bn in avoidable damages claims

Billions of pounds in NHS damages claims could have been avoided had recommendations from past reviews been followed by action, argues Kerstin Scheel

Understanding Chinese underground banking and the risks
FeatureThu May 18 2023
Understanding Chinese underground banking and the risks

Laurence Howland explores the mechanisms of Chinese underground banking and the red flags

The building blocks for a successful collaborative culture
FeatureThu May 18 2023
The building blocks for a successful collaborative culture

Chris Marston explores the ways in which law firms can establish a powerful collaborative culture

SJ Interview: James Fulforth
SJ InterviewThu May 18 2023
SJ Interview: James Fulforth

The Solicitors Journal spoke to James Fulforth, Kingsley Napley’s newly appointed Senior Partner, about his experiences in the law, his thoughts on the UK’s tech sector and what he hopes to achieve in his new role

Long-awaited reports and controversial bills dominate
ForewordTue Apr 25 2023
Long-awaited reports and controversial bills dominate

Sophie Cameron takes a look at the news in the April Foreword