The Attorney General has decided to refer questions of law to the Court of Appeal concerning the proper scope of defences to criminal charges arising from protests
The Attorney General, the Rt. Hon. Suella Braverman QC MP, has decided to refer questions of law to the Court of Appeal concerning the proper scope of defences to criminal charges arising from protests, and the directions which should be given to juries in such cases.
The referral relates to the Colston statue protest. The Attorney has concluded that this case has led to uncertainty regarding the interaction between the offence of criminal damage and the rights relevant to protest peacefully. The Attorney’s action will not overturn the acquittals in this case.
The Court of Appeal will be asked to clarify the law around whether someone can use a defence related to their human rights when they are accused of criminal damage. The Court will also 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. In the Colston statue case, the judge directed the jury that, before they could convict, they must be sure that doing so would be a ‘proportionate interference’ (in other words compatible) with the defendants’ exercise of their rights to freedom of thought and to freedom of expression.
Acting independently of Government, in her role as the Guardian of the Public Interest, the Attorney General made the decision in the interests of future cases involving the same point of law.
Since 2000, there have been 19 instances of this power being used by Attorneys General. The last time this power was used was in December 2020 when the Attorney clarified the law in relation to sexual assault.
Commenting on her decision, the Attorney General said:
Notes to Editors
Factsheet: the Attorney General’s Referral of a Protest Case to the Court of Appeal (PDF, 89.6 KB, 1 page)