The Attorney General of England and Wales said on Friday that he was “carefully considering” whether to order a review of Edward Colston’s statue case.
The four, called “Colston Four,” were acquitted by a jury on Wednesday after admitting that they had defeated the statue of Colston during a Black Lives Matter protest.
The Attorney General of England and Wales, Surah Braverman, said on Friday that the verdict was “causing confusion” and that it was “carefully considering” whether to request a review.
“The jury trial is an important guardian of liberty and must not be undermined, but the decision on the Colston statue is confusing,” Braverman wrote on Twitter.
The Attorney General said, “You can refer the matter to the Court of Appeals so that the senior judge has the opportunity to clarify the law for future cases,” but a potential review is the result of the case. Does not affect.
“We are carefully considering whether to do so,” she writes.
The Public Prosecutor’s Office (CPS) must refer the case to the Attorney General before the Attorney General orders the review. Shortly before Braverman posted the tweet, her office emailed The Epoch Times, telling her that the office hadn’t been introduced yet. And the CPS email said, “We are considering the outcome of the incident.”
It was after former Justice Minister Sir Robert Buckland called the verdict “twisted.”
During the trial, the court heard that two defendants, Milo Ponceford and Ryan Graham, brought the rope and Sage Willoughby hung it around the statue. Into the water.
None of the defendants denied their involvement, but claimed that the existence of the slave trader statue was a hate crime or a vulgar display, and that the destruction of the statue was to prevent the crime.
There was also concern that the jury would put excessive pressure on them due to excessive rhetoric from their lawyers.
Liam Walker, a defender of Willoughby, told the jury in his closing remarks:
“It will resonate all over the world. I encourage you to be on the right side of history,” he added.
Judge Peter Blair criticized the barrister, who apologized for his remarks.
The judge also told the jury that the case must be decided based on the evidence they heard. Referenced in the defense counsel summary.
Mr. Buckland, who spoke about the BBC Radio 4’s “World at One” program on Thursday, said the jury trial is “one of our jewels” that is part of what makes Britain a civilized country. “Occasionally, some people explained that it was abnormal,” he said.
Asked if the outcome of Colston’s four cases was what he thought was a twist, the conservative MP replied: “Frankly, I do.”
Buckland believes the judge “properly instructed the jury to focus on evidence and the law,” but “if there is any ambiguity in how the law applies,” the prosecution told the court. He added that he could ask for it. Of appeal.
He also told The Telegraph that if the kind of argument heard in the Colston case is heard again in the future, “the jury must have the utmost clarity about how the jury is instructed in the law.”
“It’s a legitimate defense to commit assault to prevent a crime, but how much do you take it? How can a statue sin? It’s a strange composition to import into a case.” He said.
“I don’t think we want the Criminal Court to be a political playground. They are not political venues. They are where the law applies and the evidence is evaluated.”
Raj Chada, a barrister who defended Skuse, argued that CPS should not have prosecuted the case and questioned the role that Home Secretary Priti Patel played in the prosecution.
Following the verdict, Mr Chada said the prosecution “did not benefit the public in any way or form.”
The CPS Code requires prosecutors to consider both evidence and the public interest before deciding whether to prosecute a case.
Chada also questioned the alleged involvement of Patel in the case.
“What impact did the government have on this? What impact did Priti Patel have? We know she had a meeting with Avon and Somerset police about the incident.” He said.
“It is not correct that the Minister of Interior should be involved in ongoing cases and these cases should be treated at the local level in the interests of justice.”
A CPS spokesperson said:
A government spokesman said:
“The public prosecutor’s office is independent, and the public prosecutor’s office’s decisions are based on the evidence they have and are completely independent of the police and government.”
PA contributed to this report.