Thread by @Barristerblog

The jury had at least 3 separate legal routes to finding the defendants not guilty. The verdict was absolutely not an "assault on the rule of law."

https://twitter.com/SBarrettBar/status/1478807395988131843

1. A defence of honest (not necessarily reasonable) belief that the owners of the statue would have consented. S. 5 (2) (a) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971.

2. The use of reasonable force to prevent the crime of an indecent public display.

3. The defence that a conviction would amount to a disproportionate interference with the right to protest.

You may well disagree with the jury's views (and we don't know precisely which arguments they found persuasive) but they were given entirely lawful routes to the acquittals. The verdicts are in no sense an assault on the rule of law.