News

Colston Four becomes Colston Three as victorious barrister is left off follow-up panel event

By on
9

No spot for Liam Walker QC as rest of defence team prepare to discuss legal arguments in high-profile trial

The statue of Edward Colston – via Simon Cobb/Wikimedia Commons

One of the ‘Colston Four’ defence barristers has been left off a panel discussion of the legal arguments put forward during the headline-grabbing case.

While three of the four defence advocates will be speaking at a webinar on Colston: The Legal Arguments tomorrow afternoon, the fourth — Liam Walker QC — appears not to have been invited.

His absence follows reports of tension among the four lawyers representing the four defendants, who were acquitted of criminal damage amid a media frenzy earlier this year after pulling down a statue of slaver Edward Colston in June 2020.

Walker, of Doughty Street Chambers, represented 22-year-old Sage Willoughby. The other defendants — Rhian Graham, Milo Ponsford and Jake Skuse — were represented by Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh of Matrix Chambers, Tom Wainwright of Garden Court Chambers, and Raj Chada of Hodges Jones & Allen respectively.

Garden Court and Matrix have teamed up to organise a seminar trumpeting the legal nous of those involved, with the panel comprised of Ní Ghrálaigh, Wainwright and Chada.

A screenshot of the webinar’s event page

This is despite Walker being the one who “made the submissions on lawful excuse“, which defence is seen among the most plausible reasons for the acquittal (although juries don’t give reasons for their decision and other routes to a not guilty verdict were available). The lawful excuse defence is likely to be a talking point at tomorrow’s event.

The 2022 Legal Cheek Chambers Most List

Doughty Street said at the time that Walker’s arguments were “unique” — and is understood to be less than chuffed about rival chambers cutting them out.

It was also Walker who called Professor David Olusoga and “local community leader” Lloyd Russell to give evidence putting Colson’s legacy in context.

A detailed account of the trial in the New Statesman suggests that there were “disagreements” between the legal team, with Walker (not then a silk) almost always “pitched against the other three”.

Walker’s first tweet about the trial, albeit a couple of months afterwards, praised the judge and the prosecution but pointedly did not mention his fellow defence lawyers.

The New Statesman piece suggests that Walker sees his omission from the panel as a “snub”. He declined to comment.

The event is billed as “a joint webinar by Matrix and Garden Court Chambers, to explore the legal defences in the Colston Four case, one of the most high-profile criminal trials in recent years, and look ahead to what the future of protest law may hold”. It takes place at 5pm tomorrow.

Asked whether there was a reason for the QC’s omission, the organisers and panellists did not respond.

For all the latest commercial awareness info, news and careers advice:

Sign up to the Legal Cheek Newsletter

9 Comments

Why is this an article

Who tf cares

(30)(2)

Colston’s cousin

Oooh I wonder what’s gone on here then?

(12)(0)

What Would Protesters Do?

Wow.

You sweat your guts out to make it at the Bar, to take on cases of national importance, to sacrifice time with your loved ones to get there – and it’s still the politics of secondary school.

(24)(0)

Bob

I am always suspicious of barristers who crave or even tolerate media attention. No doubt Walker is off actually practising law.

(18)(0)

Gunther

The tragedy here is that by letting these ghastly four off the jury has undermined the safety and well-being for the law-abiding majority. The law is an ass if these arguments allow juries to pervert the course of proper justice

(18)(11)

Anonymous

Nope. Actually it affirms that the people are in charge.

As recently as 2005 the House of Lords affirmed that Judges cannot direct verdicts of Guilty, even if there is no defence known to law.

As such, the jury (which can deliver a just verdict contrary to law) keep us free from tyranny.

(3)(7)

Trueangle

All it takes is a couple of mad tree huggers on a jury and these horrible people will be able to cause anarchy for the law abiding silent majority. We did not vote for freedom in 2016 to allow these types to ruin our lives. Boris and Patel need to stamp this silliness out.

(7)(6)

Burnt My Toast

It is a shame that the AG’s referral to the Court of Appeal cannot provide a route to overturn the awful verdicts.

(5)(4)

Anon

Oh, it’s been postponed anyway; “Due to legal developments”.

(4)(0)

Comments are closed.

Related Stories