Home News

Some energy suppliers have excessively hiked customers’ direct debit payments beyond what is required, the business secretary has said as he gave them a three-week deadline to explain themselves or face “substantial fines”. Household energy bills have soared in the UK after the regulator Ofgem raised its price cap by 54 per cent in April in response to a record rise in wholesale gas prices – bringing an average increase of £693. But the regulator warned a fortnight later that it had seen “troubling signs” of “bad practices” by some suppliers, including potentially “increasing direct debit payments by more than is necessary”, amid reports that some customers have seen their payments double – or even triple.In a blog post on 14 April, Ofgem’s chief executive, Jonathan Brearley, said there were also concerns regarding some suppliers’ “troubling” treatment of vulnerable customers when they fall into difficulties, and of firms potentially “directing customers to tariffs that may not be in their best interest”.Mr Brearley said Ofgem was commissioning a series of market compliance reviews that would include “stricter supervision of how direct debits are handled” by suppliers and ensure they are “held to higher standards for overall performance on customer service and protecting vulnerable customers”.Upping the ante on Tuesday afternoon, Kwasi Kwarteng outright accused some suppliers of “increasing direct debits beyond what is required” – and said some could face “substantial fines”.He said: “Some energy suppliers have been increasing direct debits beyond what is required.“I can confirm Ofgem has today issued compliance reviews. Suppliers have three weeks to respond. The regulator will not hesitate to swiftly enforce compliance, including issuing substantial fines.”Dozens of energy suppliers have collapsed in the UK in the space of little more than a year, leaving behind millions of customers, and potentially adding billions of pounds to the cost of energy bills.But Mr Brearley claimed last month that “one of the root causes of the failures of many of those suppliers” is related to the way that they have managed the money paid to them by customers.The Ofgem chief accused some firms of using customer credit balances “to prop up their finances, enabling them to follow more risky business models with reduced financial resilience and higher likelihood of failure”.A spokesperson for Energy UK, which represents energy companies, told the BBC on Tuesday: “Suppliers are required to set [direct debits] at a fair and reasonable level based on the customer’s individual circumstances, taking into account factors like previous energy use or record with previous payments.“It is right that the regulator is looking to ensure that suppliers are complying with those requirements. Customers who do have concerns with the level of their direct debit payments should contact their supplier.”Inflation and the cost of living crisis have emerged as the top issues in local elections across the UK on Thursday, and Boris Johnson has faced increasing calls from opposition parties to impose a windfall tax on energy giants to ease the burden of household bills.But Cabinet divisions over such a move were exposed this week, as Mr Kwarteng argued firmly against an “arbitrary” windfall tax, just days after the chancellor, Rishi Sunak, indicated he was ready to consider the move.Pressed repeatedly over the idea in interviews on Tuesday, Mr Johnson rejected the move, saying: “If you start whacking huge taxes on business, in the end you deter investment and you slow down growth.”“If BP wants to pay a windfall tax then that’s another matter but the clear advice we have is that we need those big companies to invest,” he told Times Radio, adding: “We are in constant discussion with them.” More

Ministers have abandoned plans to send the first asylum-seekers to Rwanda this month as promised, prompting accusations that they are blaming legal challenges rather than admit that the idea is “unworkable”. When the multi-million pound deal was announced last month, Boris Johnson said the first flights would take off within “weeks” – but his spokesperson on Tuesday said it would now be “a matter of months”.No 10 has blamed legal challenges against the policy but also insisted court action would not put the controversial project “on hold”.Charities and lawyers said the delay indicated that ministers had accepted that the challenges of implementing the policy were “far greater than it had anticipated”, and that there was now a likelihood that it could “easily unravel” because the logistics have “simply not been thought through”. Meanwhile, one Home Office source believes the government “actually wants” legal challenges so that ministers can “point to their frustration at being blocked by the courts and push for more power over court decisions.”The source told The Independent that the current policy “will be difficult” to implement, but added: “I don’t think politically they will abandon the idea though, it will carry into the next election manifesto I would guess.”Experts had questioned Mr Johnson’s claim that the scheme – which he has said will see tens of thousands of people deported there after arriving in the UK via irregular means – could start almost immediately, with some doubting whether any refugees would ever be sent to Rwanda.The prime minister’s spokesman acknowledged that the legal action was not “unexpected” and described it as only “one of the variables” affecting hopes for the scheme.“We are working to get the first flights moving – I don’t know definitely what timescale that will be,” he added.An analysis by the Refugee Council last month found that fewer than 200 asylum seekers would be deported to the east African country under existing immigration rules, casting doubt over the prime minister’s claims.Enver Solomon, chief executive of the charity, said: “The government’s desire to treat people as human cargo and expelling them to Rwanda is not only appallingly and unprincipled – it also unworkable.“The government now seems to be accepting that the challenges of making it a reality are far greater than it had anticipated. There’s a likelihood that it could now easily unravel and certainly never be on a scale the prime minister said it could be.”Sonya Sceats, chief executive at Freedom from Torture, a charity bringing one of the legal challenges, said: “It is obvious that ministers are hiding behind court cases rather than admit that this inhumane plan is unworkable.“Critical operational considerations have simply not been thought through, including the risks of sharing sensitive data about refugees with a repressive state known to practice torture.”Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesperson Alistair Carmichael said the “cruel” plan was “rapidly turning into yet another expensive mess”, adding: “It isn’t deterring people from crossing the Channel, and it’s already mired in predictable delays. “Everything the Conservatives have done has only made this problem worse. It’s time they realised that the best way to prevent the crossings, and combat the smuggling and trafficking gangs, is to provide safe and legal routes to sanctuary for refugees.”Around 550 people have crossed from France in small boats in the last two days following an 11-day pause, casting doubts over claims by some Conservative MPs that the Rwanda threat is already acting as a deterrent.The government has argued legal powers already exist to allow asylum-seekers to be sent to Rwanda, but critics argue it breaches both the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Geneva Convention.Toufique Hossain, director of public law at Duncan Lewis, which is representing the civil service union (Public and Commercial Services Union) and two charities in a court challenge against the policy, said the delay “could suggest that the home secretary has finally worked out what most people already know – the plans are unworkable, unlawful and a huge waste of tax payers’ money”. Immigration lawyer Alasdair Mackenzie echoed his remarks, saying: “Legal challenges will undoubtedly – and rightly – happen, but they’d be a convenient smokescreen for the fact that the practical mechanics of the Rwanda plan – who qualifies, where will they live, how do you stop them coming back, etc – have blatantly not been thought through.”A Home Office spokesperson said: “This world-leading Migration Partnership will overhaul our broken asylum system, which is currently costing the UK taxpayer £1.5bn a year – the highest amount in two decades.“It means those arriving dangerously, illegally or unnecessarily can be relocated to have their asylum claims considered and, if recognised as refugees, build their lives there.“Our new Migration and Economic Development Partnership with Rwanda fully complies with international and national law. We will defend any legal challenge robustly.” More

Most asylum seekers in Calais are still hoping to make it to the UK despite plans that could see them sent to Rwanda, according to a new survey. A charity polled those waiting in migrant camps in northern France in the days since the British government passed a law making it a criminal offence to knowingly arrive without permission.Care4Calais found most had heard of the deal with Rwanda, which will see people who arrive “illegally” in the UK under new immigration rules sent to the east African country to apply for asylum there instead.Three quarters of those polled said the plans would not put them off making the Channel crossing, the charity said.Care4Calais said it did not find the results surprising. “Rwanda is getting headlines but at its core it’s really just another in a long line of deterrence policies announced by this government over the last few years. And let’s face it – they’ve all failed,” it said in a tweet.Around 350 were found crossing the Channel in small boats on Sunday. More people thought to be migrants were seen being brought in to Dover on Monday.It came after what is believed to have been an 11-day break in activity, when no crossings were recorded amid reports of strong winds and choppy seas.The Home Office is facing two legal challenges – including one involving Care4Calais – over its plans to send asylum seekers overseas to have their claims decided.The proposal has been met with criticisms from the United Nations refugee agency, the Church of England, charities and Home Office staff since it was revealed last month.Care4Calais said they wanted to see safe and legal routes for those fleeing dangerous situations instead.“The answer to many problems in Calais is to let refugees apply for visas to cross the Channel safely, because now – unless you’re Ukrainian – there’s no safe way for a refugee to get to the UK and claim asylum,” it said. “That would put people smugglers out of business and save lives.”The Home Office has been approached for comment. More

The RSPCA is hailing what it calls “a milestone week” for animal welfare as three new long-fought for animal protection measures become law.The use of glue traps, condemned by campaigners as “crude devices that cause horrific suffering”, will be banned in England – although with two loopholes.One is that selling the traps will still be legal. Humane Society UK said that although the sale of glue traps cannot also be banned unilaterally in England without the same ban in the other three nations of the UK, it would write to retailers in England to urge them to withdraw from sale traps that will no longer be legal to use. The other loophole is that professional pest-controllers will be able to apply for licences to use the traps, which leave rodents, birds and pets suffering stress, exhaustion, dehydration or injuries for hours or days as they struggle to get free.Meanwhile, people who fail to properly care for their pets, zoo animals and livestock could face new fixed-penalty fines of up to £5,000.Under the new legislation, fines could be handed out to pet breeders who fail to microchip puppies before rehoming them, horse owners tethering animals in a way that neglects their basic needs or farmers transporting livestock that are not fit to travel.The fixed-penalty notices are intended to “bridge the gap” between offering advice and prosecution, and the idea is they should reduce pressure on the courts.The police will be able to issue the fines, but not the RSPCA.At the same time, the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill, which also gained Royal Assent, will oblige ministers to take into account the fact that animals experience feelings and emotions when they are making policy decisions.The government sparked controversy when it failed to carry over sentience from EU legislation into UK law after Brexit.A new Animal Sentience Committee made up of experts will be created to hold government to account on how well its decisions have taken account of the welfare of animals, publishing reports that ministers need to respond to in Parliament.Emma Slawinski, of the RSPCA, said: “It’s a good week for animal welfare; the RSPCA has been campaigning on glue traps, animal sentience and fixed penalty notices for a long time.“We are now pressing the government to introduce bans on the import of foie gras and fur, and for it to implement the Kept Animals Bill so that live exports of animals for slaughter, keeping primates as pets and the cruel puppy import trade can also be banned once and for all.”The Kept Animals Bill is due to continue its passage into law via a carryover motion in the next parliamentary session.However, the government appears to have dropped the Animals Abroad Bill, which would have banned the import of foie gras and fur, and banned adverts for cruel animal attractions abroad. More

The record-high numbers of sex crimes recorded by police in England and Wales are likely the “tip of the iceberg”, campaigners have warned.New figures show sexual offences hit their highest level from December 2020 to December 2021 – rising to 183,587 crimes. This is a 22 per cent surge from the year before and an increase of 13 per cent from 2019.The fresh data, released by the Office for National Statistics on Thursday, revealed there was a significant rise in reports of sexual offences after the government loosened lockdown rules.Some 67,125 rapes were reported from December 2020 to December 2021 – meaning rapes made up 37 per cent of the sexual offences recorded. This constitutes a 21 per cent rise from 55,592 reports of rape in the 12 months to December 2020.However, convictions for rape remain at an all-time low, with the prosecution rate nosediving to only 1.3 per cent of recorded rapes in England and Wales earlier in the year.Rebecca Hitchen, of the End Violence Against Women Coalition, told The Independent: “In the last couple of years, we’ve seen high profile cases of violence against women put sexual offences firmly on the public agenda.“This data may therefore reflect greater awareness and inclination to report to the police. However, while around a third of reported rapes relate to domestic abuse it may also be true that the easing of lockdowns and return of socialising led to increased opportunity and impunity with which perpetrators might offend.“What we know is that these figures remain the tip of the iceberg, as reporting does not feel like an option for many women, particularly those who face discrimination on the basis of their race, immigration status, disability, and other characteristics.”Ms Hitchen warned those women coming forward to report rape and sexual assault are being treated like they are the ones who are under investigation instead of being given proper support.She warned the current system “blames and harms them, inappropriately focuses on their ‘credibility’ and in the vast majority of cases, will not bring them justice”.Ms Hitchen added: “This is a national scandal and despite commitments in the government’s Rape Review, nothing is really changing. This latest data from the Office for National Statistics must be a wake-up call to the government that our broken justice system needs a radical overhaul.”Jayne Butler, chief executive of Rape Crisis England and Wales, said the “vast majority” of rapes and sexual assaults are never reported to the police by victims so the rise in people coming forward is “encouraging”.She added: “It is likely these figures reflect a gradual increase in survivors’ willingness to pursue criminal justice rather than an increase in the number of sexual offences being committed.“The figures also reflect the growing number of adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse who are now coming forward.”Ms Butler noted this increase in people reporting sexual offences to the police has gone hand in hand with the “unprecedented levels of need and demand” for her organisation’s specialist Rape Crisis services in recent years.There are currently 12,000 people on Rape Crisis waiting lists, Ms Butler added, as she argued “long-term, sustainable funding” for services which help victims of sexual offences is “more urgently needed than ever”.Emily Hunt, who alleges she was raped in May 2015, told The Independent the rise in sexual offences reports is “fundamentally good news” as it shows people feel able to report to the police.The 42-year-old, who is an independent adviser to the government on the Rape Review, added: “They are not just helping themselves pursue justice. They are helping to stop future rapes. “They deserve our thanks. We know from academic research and from police forces that a lot of rapists are serial offenders. The majority of uncaught rapists go on to do it again. A US study found they rape on average at least 5.8 times in the course of their lives.”Ms Hunt said the suspect-focused investigation model for rape gives her hope as she explained it is changing the way rape is investigated across England and Wales but is still in its “early phases”.She claims she was treated badly by the police when she came forward to allege she had been raped. “I absolutely lived through the victim blaming and shaming from the police,” she said. “The police investigated me and my credibility instead of my attacker.”Ms Hunt claimed she woke up without any clothes in a hotel bed in London next to a man she says she had never seen before.Ms Hunt claimed she was filmed naked without her consent – adding that the police only told her about the naked video of her just over a year after the alleged incident took place. She said her last memory was of having lunch with a family member in a local restaurant five hours earlier, adding that she felt as if she had been drugged and also suspected she had been raped.The man was arrested on suspicion of rape in 2015 but denied the allegations and was not charged because of a lack of evidence.Commenting on the latest figures on sexual offences, Dame Vera Baird QC, victims’ commissioner for England, said: “We know that the majority of victims do not report, and thousands of rapes and sexual assaults take place each year without any sort of criminal justice outcome. Issues with the policing and prosecuting of rape are also well documented.“So, it is somewhat positive to see that victims are not being put off reporting. My hope is that we do not betray these victims’ trust like we have failed so many victims in the past.”Ruth Davison, chief executive of Refuge, the UK’s largest provider of shelters for domestic abuse victims, said the charity “constantly” sees investigations into sexual crimes “re-traumatising survivors”. This results in them either pulling out of cases or not reporting offences in the first place, she added.“A ‘record high’ in sexual offences is a devastating phrase to read,” she added. “Serious action is needed to address not only the rise in offences but the woefully low rate of prosecutions that this and other recent data has shown.”The fresh data released by the Office for National Statistics also revealed a rise in domestic abuse-related offences logged – with researchers discounting fraud crimes.There were 895,782 offences recorded as domestic abuse-related in 2021, which is a 7 per cent rise from the year before.Sarah Davidge, of Women’s Aid, a leading domestic abuse charity, told The Independent: “It is vital to acknowledge that many survivors do not report to the police, meaning this is likely to be the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the scale of domestic abuse in this country.“Less than a fifth of women report to the police so we know the true number of women experiencing abuse is much higher than police recorded data.”Between two and three women are murdered each week by their partners or ex-partners in England and Wales, while one in four women will suffer domestic abuse at some point during their lives. More

Labour councils across the north of England have repeatedly lost seats because leading councillors have spent too much time complaining about austerity rather than dealing with it more dynamically, the leader of one of its flagship authorities has said.Graeme Miller, leader of Sunderland City Council, says a decade of government cuts have left many local authorities barely able to offer bare minimum services: library, social care and cultural budgets have all been slashed across much of the country.But he thinks voters in the old Red Wall have grown weary of Labour councils continually blaming Conservative fiscal policy for the problems they face.“For a period of time saying austerity was killing us was fair but over [12 years] the public gets tone deaf to it and understandably so,” he said. “People just want to see services being delivered. So, if you’ve spent too long saying ‘austerity austerity austerity’, people are going to turn away from you. We need to get on with being positive. Explain why there may be a reduction in services – why we’re cutting the grass less or there’s more pot holes – but tell people what we’re doing to make things better.”He added: “Sunderland has lost more than £350 million – it’s almost impossible to live with – but what have to do is deliver either more with the same or the same with less.”He spoke out as fears emerged that the party might lose control of the north-east city’s council for the first time since it was formed in 197. Internal Conservative polling is said to suggest the reds could lose six seats here on 5 May, denying the party its historic majority on Wearside.The loss – should it happen – would follow a devastating set of local election results last year in which the party saw more than 320 councillors voted out, including nine in Sunderland. Majority control of one-time redoubts including Sheffield and Northumberland was also surrendered on a horror night for the party.Now, although Councillor Miller says he is confident Labour will retain Sunderland Council and make gains across the north, he admitted many voters appeared to feel the party had taken them for granted for too long.“We have to work hard to gain the trust of people again by doing,” said the 59-year-old, whose own seat is also up for re-election this year. “And if we’re honest, that probably explains why we’ve lost support in places like Darlington, Hartlepool, Stockton, Middlesborough – because these are big Labour areas that we should be strong in, and we need to work out how we get back there.” More

Ministers have for the first time signed a deal to send asylum seekers arriving in the UK to another country to have their cases processed, in a move experts warn will encourage people traffickers.Boris Johnson is set to announce an agreement with Rwanda that will see migrants “offshored” more than 4,000 miles away to the landlocked African country while they wait for an asylum decision from the Home Office.It is understood that the Rwandan government will be paid an initial cost of £120m under the deal, which will be funded by the British taxpayer.The prime minister is expected to set out the plans in a speech on Thursday morning, stating:“Our compassion may be infinite, but our capacity to help people is not.“The British people voted several times to control our borders – not to close them, but to control them. So just as Brexit allowed us to take back control of legal immigration by replacing free movement with our points-based system, we are also taking back control of illegal immigration, with a long-term plan for asylum in this country.”But while the government claims the move will allow the UK to “take back control”, critics condemned the policy, saying it was “cruel and nasty”.Describing it as “unworkable, unethical and extortionate”, shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper warned that it would cost the UK taxpayer billions of pounds during a cost of living crisis and would make it “harder, not easier” to get fast and fair asylum decisions.She slammed the announcement as a “desperate and shameful” attempt by Mr Johnson to “distract from his own law-breaking” and from the “collapse” of the Home Office’s decision-making on asylum claims, which sees thousands waiting for more than a year for a decision.“The Home Office is now a catalogue of failure, from passport queues to Ukrainian visa delays, to rising crime and falling prosecutions. Instead of getting a grip on the basics, all Priti Patel and Mr Johnson do is come up with wild and unworkable headlines. Britain deserves better,” she added.Enver Solomon, of the Refugee Council, described the plan as “cruel and nasty” and said it would do little to deter people from coming to the UK, only leading to “more human suffering and chaos”.“Far from enabling people to rebuild their lives, we know from where this has been done by other countries [that] it only results in high levels of self-harm and mental health issues, and can also lead to people ending up back in the hands of people smugglers,” he said.The plan to develop capacity for offshore processing forms part of the Home Office’s controversial Nationality and Borders Bill, which is currently going through parliament.Senior Tories have condemned the measure, with former cabinet minister Andrew Mitchell warning that the move would involve building a “British Guantanamo Bay” and would cost £2m per asylum seeker – more than putting them up in the Ritz hotel.Richard Harrington, the government’s own refugees minister, said only last week that he had not been informed of the plans, and indicated that any such policy is likely to fail.Critics point to a similar migration deal between Rwanda and Israel between 2014 and 2017, which resulted in most of those who were sent there leaving the country and making the dangerous journey to Europe – during which many people were trafficked and sold.Campaigners have also warned that the plan is likely to see LGBT+ asylum seekers who have fled life-threatening situations in their home countries and sought protection in the UK being sent to a country where it is not safe for gay and transgender people to be open about their sexual orientation.There is widespread evidence of ill-treatment and abuse of LGBT+ people in Rwanda, with a Human Rights Watch report last year stating that Rwandan authorities had rounded up and arbitrarily detained gay and transgender people in the country.A policy of offshoring asylum seekers in Australia, which ran from 2001 to 2007 and restarted in 2014, has seen thousands diverted to Nauru or Manus Island to have their claims processed. The policy has been widely condemned, with Amnesty International saying it amounted to indefinite detention in what may be considered “degrading or inhumane” conditions.Sonya Sceats, chief executive at Freedom from Torture, said the plans were “deeply disturbing” and should “horrify anybody with a conscience”.“Australia’s experiment with offshore processing camps became a hotbed of human rights abuses, where sexual abuse of women and children was rife,” she said. “It is even more dismaying that the UK government has agreed this deal with a state known to practice torture, as we know from the many Rwandan torture survivors we have treated over the years.”Mr Johnson will state in his announcement that the plan will “ensure the UK has a world-leading asylum offer, providing generous protection to those directly fleeing the worst of humanity, by settling thousands of people every year through safe and legal routes”.Following Mr Johnson’s speech, home secretary Ms Patel will announce further details on what the government has dubbed a “world-first migration and economic development partnership” during a visit to Rwanda.Where has ‘offshoring’ been used before?There are many details yet to emerge on the UK government’s new migration deal with Rwanda, but the aim is clear: send asylum seekers away to deter them from arriving on our shores.A policy of “offshoring” asylum seekers is a first for the UK, but it has been done – though examples are limited – in other parts of the world.Australia started placing asylum seekers in detention centres on Nauru and Manus Island in 2001. The policy ran until 2007, and restarted in 2014. It has seen thousands placed in detention camps, at a cost of around $12bn in the eight years to 2021.Up to three-quarters of asylum seekers being held in Australia’s offshore camps were ultimately determined to be refugees, but the government denied them any prospect of resettlement in the country.The harsh physical conditions in the centres have been well documented, with detainees suffering from poor mental health due to prolonged detention and uncertainty about their future prospects, inadequate and unhygienic living conditions, and a poor standard of healthcare.At least 10 people have taken their lives while being held in Australia’s offshore processing centres.No evidence has been found for the effectiveness of the Australian model of offshore asylum processing in the reduction of migration flows, according to a report by the Open Society European Policy Institute.Announcing its new “migration and economic development” deal, the government described Rwanda as “one of the fastest-growing economies in Africa which is recognised globally for its record on welcoming and integrating migrants”.But a similar migration deal between Rwanda and Israel between 2014 and 2017 is said to have resulted in nearly all of the 4,000 people estimated to have been sent there leaving the country almost immediately.Many attempted to return to Europe via people-smuggling routes, where trafficking and human rights abuses are rife, notably along the journey through Libya.In a less direct example, the EU has also been accused of using a form of offshoring by outsourcing its efforts to curb migration to the Libyan coastguard, which the bloc has funded to carry out “pushbacks” in the Mediterranean and bring migrants back to Libya.Migrants have subsequently been detained in centres and have fallen victim to ruthless trafficking gangs, who have subjected them to torture in a bid to extort money from their relatives back in their home countries.Denmark signed a migration deal with Rwanda last year, as well as passing an act allowing the country to relocate asylum seekers to outside the EU while their cases are being processed, though no migrants are believed to have been sent from Denmark to Rwanda yet.The African Union strongly condemned the move, accusing Denmark of “burden shifting” and highlighting that Africa already “shoulders the burden” of many of the world’s refugees.With no offshore policy across the world known to have been a success, and many human rights abuses having resulted from such policies, the UK’s plan comes with considerable risks. More

The Attorney General has asked judges at the Court of Appeal to clarify the law around whether defendants can use their human rights as a defence when they are accused of criminal damage.Suella Braverman made the referral in the wake of the acquittals of four people accused of pulling down the statue of slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol during a Black Lives Matter protest. The bronze memorial was then rolled by a crowd through the streets of the city before being dumped in the harbour.Rhian Graham, 30, Milo Ponsford, 26, Sage Willoughby, 22, and Jake Skuse, 33, dubbed the “Colston Four” were acquitted of criminal damage despite acknowledging their part in toppling the monument. Any future ruling by the Court of Appeal, however, will not impact the four defendants’ acquittals.Ms Braverman concluded the case led to uncertainty regarding the interaction between the offence of criminal damage and the rights relevant to protest peacefully.Jurors were asked to decide if they believed a conviction for criminal damage was a “proportionate interference” with the defendants’ human rights of freedom of expression, thought and conscience.It was the final question in the “route to verdict” – a series of steps for a jury to follow when deciding if someone is guilty or not guilty.Ms Braverman said that she had also asked the court to consider whether it was up to juries to decide if a criminal conviction is a proportionate interference with someone’s human rights.During the trial in December and January of this year at Bristol Crown Court, the four defendants each claimed the statue was offensive and a hate crime towards Bristol’s black community.Sage Willoughby compared the statue with Nazism, saying: “Imagine having a Hitler statue in front of a Holocaust survivor – I believe they are similar.”In his directions to jurors, Judge Peter Blair QC said they had to balance the defendants’ human rights against the legislation contained within the Criminal Damage Act.He said that individuals have the right to freedom of thought and conscience and to manifest one’s beliefs, and the right to freedom of expression.Judge Blair said: “These rights protect not only beliefs, such as anti-racism, and speech itself, but also actions associated with protest.“Even where those actions have more than a minimal impact on the rights of other people, they need not result in a conviction. It is all a matter of fact and degree.”He added limitations on human rights are permitted under laws including the Criminal Damage Act if it is “in the interests of public safety or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others”.The issue of human rights was the last question in the “route to verdict”.The jury was asked if it was sure a conviction for criminal damage would be “a proportionate interference” with the defendants’ “rights to freedom of thought and conscience, and to freedom of expression”.Jurors were told if they were sure the answer was “yes” the verdict should be guilty, and if “no” it should be not guilty.Ms Braverman said: “After careful consideration, I have decided to refer the Colston statue case to the Court of Appeal to clarify the law around protests.“Trial by jury is an important guardian of liberty and critical to that are the legal directions given to the jury.”She added: “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.”Ms Braverman acted independently of the government, making the decision in the interests of future cases involving the same point of law.Since 2000, there have been 19 occasions of this power being used by Attorneys Genera. The last time this power was used was in December 2020 when the Attorney clarified the law in relation to sexual assault. More