The artist Banksy acknowledges his work by publishing photographs of it on his website. So we know that this is his latest image:
Far from appearing on a derelict wall where it might do little harm, the painting was stencilled on to the side of the Queen’s Building at the Royal Courts of Justice, which is faced in stone. Quite rightly, those responsible for preserving this important public building, part of which is listed, have covered up the image and intend to clean it off.
A prosecution is not out of the question. Scotland Yard said yesterday that Metropolitan Police officers had “received a report of criminal damage to the side of the Royal Courts of Justice. Inquiries continue.”
But look more closely at the picture above and the slightly different close-up below.
The person who just happens to be walking past might appear to be a barrister. But no barrister would be fully robed when leaving court during the weekend when the picture was taken.
And look more closely at his wig. It looks to be like a bench wig, worn by judges in court. A judge would never dress like that while walking along Carey Street.
Even the cyclist on a hired bike, with his black outfit and yellow shoes, looks too good to be true.
Unfortunately for Scotland Yard, the people in the images are difficult to identify. The person who appears to be a barrister has obscured part of his face with a mobile phone. A relatively long exposure means that both subjects are slightly blurred.
Some will think that even greater offence has been caused by Banksy’s own solecisms. The painted judge is wearing a full-bottomed wig, which is reserved for ceremonial occasions. He is holding what appears to be a gavel, an item never used in the courts of the United Kingdom.
But Banksy’s greatest outrage is to coarsen public debate. Judges are required to apply the criminal law to demonstrators brought before the courts. But they do not beat down helpless defendants. There can be room for debate about particular sentences. But these issues are never black-and-white.
Update 10 September: nearly gone.
Update 11 September: a black shadow remains on the stone. More work will be needed.
'But they do not beat down helpless defendants.'
In the Industrial Tribunal in Northern Ireland, the judges did not communicate to me that the Respondents had not agreed to the hearing bundle. They did not communicate any information about 'implied undertakings'. And they withheld an essential reasonable adjustment until a reconsideration hearing. I was unable to effectively participate due to disability.
Now, a High Court judge is deciding whether I have the right to defend myself and my reputation on the back of that flawed Industrial Tribunal judgment. The court is considering issue estoppel and res judicata — even though that judgment dismissed critical evidence because of the secret bundle disagreement.
I’m feeling pretty 'beat down' and helpless as a defendant.
The egregious error in the art is the implication that it is the judiciary who are beating down protesters. They are not. They are (or will be when these cases get to court) applying the law as enacted by Parliament in accordance with their constitutional duty and their oath of office. If you dislike the law, then write to your MP, the Home Secretary, 10 Downing Street. But Banksy, whose work until now I have admired, is completely wrong here. Don't attack the judiciary as if they are responsible for a law not of their making. This risks creating even greater security risks for judges who are faithfully carrying out their duties. If a defendant disagrees, they can appeal an adverse verdict. They can invoke the right of peaceful protest under ECHR Art 11, which was recently applied in the favour of peaceful protesters by our highest Court, the UK Supreme Court, notwithstanding that the protesters has knowingly committed a (minor) criminal offence by obstructing a public highway. Thanks to the Human Rights Act they can now vindicate those rights in UK courts without going to Strasbourg. In short, it is called the Rule of Law. Not the Rule of Judges. Bravo Joshua Rozenberg.