THE High Court has ruled that it was “reasonable” for two protesters to call a former leader of the Conservative Party “Tory scum”.
Ruth Wood, 52, and Radical Haslam, 30, were acquitted of any wrongdoing following an incident which took place outside the annual Conservative Party conference in 2021.
As former minister Iain Duncan Smith left the Midland Hotel in Manchester, where the conference was taking place, with his wife Betsy and their friend Primrose Yorke, an individual ran up behind him and placed a traffic cone on his head.
Wood and Haslam then followed the group at a short distance and called the MP “Tory scum”.
Wood added: “F**k off out of Manchester”.
The 52-year old defended her comments on the grounds that she worked with homeless people in her community and saw the devastating impact of Tory policies on their quality of life.
READ MORE: Squid Game Challenge: 'My experience as a Scottish contestant'
Neither of the protesters had been aware the act of putting a traffic cone on the MP's head.
The pair were initially acquitted of any crime however an attempt was made to overturn their acquittal, which the high court rejected on Wednesday.
Lord Justice Popplewell and Justice Fordham found that a senior district judge had made no fault in finding them both not guilty of using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent.
Following a request for a judicial review in the ruling, it was found that Judge Goldspring had made the important finding that “the use of Tory scum was to highlight the policies” of Iain Duncan Smith.
Goldspring added that this was relevant to the “reasonableness of the conduct” with regards to freedom of expression and assembly.
READ MORE: UK monetary union 'malfunctioning' after Scotland agrees new deal
The High Court ruled that there was nothing to undermine the judge’s conclusion that criminalising the words “Tory scum” would be a disproportionate action, which would interfere with the rights of protesters.
The barrister representing Wood and Haslam, Tom Wainwright, said: “Just the idea that someone can be convicted for saying this is bizarre in the first place. The director of public prosecutions was trying to put the burden on the defendants to show that they hadn’t crossed the line – the crucial question of when free speech crosses the line into something that is criminal.
“What this judgment confirms is that it is not for the defence to show that, but it is for the state to show that there is a good reason to restrict free speech and that a conviction is the only way that could be done.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel