the times | Wednesday April 13 2022 7
News
The acquittals of the “Colston Four”
highlighted conflicts between the right
to protest and criminal offences, the
government’s top lawyer said yesterday
as she asked senior judges for guidance.
Suella Braverman QC, the attorney-
general, announced that she had re-
ferred “questions of law” to the Court of
Appeal regarding “the proper scope of
Top lawyer calls for clarity over case of Colston statue protesters
Jonathan Ames Legal Editor defences to criminal charges arising
from protests”. The court will also be
asked to clarify what directions judges
should give to juries in cases similar to
that involving the toppling of the statue
of Edward Colston in Bristol in 2020.
Rhian Graham, 30, Milo Ponsford,
26, Sage Willoughby, 22, and Jake
Skuse, 33, tore down the monument to
Colston, a 17th-century slave trader and
philanthropist, during a Black Lives
Matter protest and threw it into the
harbour. At their trial in January they
successfully argued that the presence
of a statue in the city was a “racist hate
crime” against its black inhabitants.
Yesterday Braverman confirmed that
her referral to the Court of Appeal
“relates to the Colston statue protest”.
However, she emphasised that the re-
ferral for guidance from the senior
judges “will not overturn the acquittals”.Braverman’s officials said the court
would be asked to clarify the law around
whether someone can use a defence
related to their human rights when
accused of criminal damage.
The court will consider whether juries
should be asked to decide if a conviction
for criminal damage is a “proportionate
interference” with the human rights of
the accused, particularly the right to
protest and freedom of expression.“Trial by jury is an important guardian
of liberty and critical to that are the legal
directions given to the jury,” said
Braverman, adding: “It is in the public
interest to clarify the points of law raised
in these cases for the future. This is a
legal matter, which is separate from the
politics of the case involved.”
Braverman said she was acting
independently of ministers in her role
as the “guardian of the public interest”.Out there The French artist Dominique Gonzalez-Foerster immerses herself in Alienarium 5, her multisensory exhibition on the subject of alien life, which opens at London’s Serpentine South gallery tomorrow
GUY BELL/ALAMY LIVE NEWSA Cambridge college will not appeal
against a decision requiring it to
maintain a monument to a participant
in the slave trade in its chapel but
criticised the Church of England for not
“understanding” black Britons.
Jesus College called on the church to
change how it deals with “matters of
racial injustice and contested heritage”,
after a consistory court’s decision that
the memorial to Tobias Rustat must stay.
Rustat, a benefactor of the college and
courtier to Charles II, invested in two
slaving companies but the church court
ruled that opposition to the memorial
was based on the “false narrative” that
he amassed his wealth from slavery.
The college said yesterday that
because of the cost it would not appeal
against the decision to keep the marble
memorial in its grade I listed chapel.
However, Sonita Alleyne, the
master of the college, said she
was confident that it was on
the “right side of history”. She
added: “The consistory court’s
decision shows a lack of
understanding of the lived ex-
perience of people of colour in
modern Britain.”
Cambridge college ends memorial fight
Judge David Hodge QC’s written
ruling in March, following a three-day
church court hearing, rejected the col-
lege’s petition to move the monument,
commissioned by Rustat and installed
upon his death in 1694, to an exhibition
space. The college’s stance was opposed
by the Rustat Memorial Group, a group
of 70 alumni. Members said that the rul-
ing was a rejection of cancel culture.
Alleyne said the college’s position had
been misrepresented in court. She said:
“The college is up against a church rul-
ing which believes involvement in the
slave trade over 30 years isn’t sufficient
to warrant the removal of this
celebratory memorial. We will take our
time and consider what to do next.”
Alleyne, the first black leader of any
Oxbridge college, said: “This judgment
demonstrates the inadequacies of the
church process for addressing issues of
racial injustice and contested me-
morialisation. It is not fit for pur-
pose. There is a much overdue
debate happening within the
church about how best to
face up to the legacy of racial
injustice. We will continue
to keep up the pressure.”
Last week 160 clergy
signed a letter to The
Church Times op-
posing the court’s
decision. In Feb-
ruary the Arch-
bishop of Can-terbury, the Most Rev Justin Welby,
asked: “Why is it so much agony to
remove a memorial to slavery?” Last
night he hinted that the church’s heri-
tage guidance may have to change. “I
have no doubt that the law was followed
and that the Church of England’s
contested heritage guidance was used,”
he said. “But if we are content with a
situation where people of colour are ex-
cluded from places of worship because
of the pain caused by such memorials,
then clearly we have a lot further to go
in our journey towards racial justice.”
He said the church was reviewing its
role in slavery and would publish its
findings in the coming months.
The Times can reveal that Welby’s
office said he was “in full agreement”
with the Church Buildings Council’s re-
sponse to the case. The council said last
night: “We know the outcome is not
what some had hoped for, however the
Church of England’s processes allowed
for this case to be considered at great
length, in a court of law.
“We continue to believe that the
church’s ability to adopt a distinctive
approach to cases of this type is impor-
tant, balancing heritage considerations
with the unique place churches,
cathedrals and chapels have as centres of
living mission and ministry.”
Rustat was memorialised after giving
£2,000 to Jesus College, his father’s
alma mater, to fund scholarships for the
orphaned children of Anglican clergy.James Beal Social Affairs Editor Behind the story
J
esus College
could face a
£150,000 bill
for losing the
Tobias Rustat
memorial case,
despite declining to
appeal because of
the “significant”
costs involved
(James Beal writes).
Sources told The
Times that although
the college had not
finalised its figures
since the court case,
staff had initially
estimated fees of
about £120,000.
The Rustat
Memorial Group,
made up of 70 alumni
who clubbed together
to fight the
monument’s removal,
spent £30,000 and
have now requested
that the college pay
their costs. The
Church of England
court will rule on
costs at a later date.
Jesus College,which was founded in
1496, has an
endowment of
£203.6 million.
Those who fought
the memorial’s
removal said that
they were “dismayed”
the college had
now turned on the
church. Lawrence
Goldman, a former
Oxford University
history professor who
gave evidence during
the case, said that he
had initially hoped
the ruling would help
to build bridges with
the college, his alma
mater. However, he
said: “I still think they
don’t get it. The
college makes the
point that it is a
diverse institution. It
must also accept that
there is great diversity
of thought and values
in our society. It
rather looks like the
college is thrashing
around. There mustcome a point where it
stops and thinks, ‘All
this aggression,
maybe we have made
a mistake?’ I think I
speak for the alumni
when I say we’re
pleased they haven’t
gone to appeal. But
we are dismayed that
now the college seems
to have turned its fire
on the Church of
England. They are not
thinking as an
academic institution
should. In a spirit of
some humility, they
need to address what
was wrong with their
case and think
carefully about the
judgment. The college
is fixated on one
aspect of what is a
very complex case
and context and it still
doesn’t seem to
understand its
responsibility to care
for this very
remarkable piece of
art.”Sonita Alleyne, the
master of Jesus
College, criticised the
Church of England