Teacher who held coconut placard of Sunak and Braverman found not guilty
Marieha Hussain, 37, was acquitted after standing trial at Westminster Magistrates’ Court in London
Get Nadine White's Race Report newsletter for a fresh perspective on the week's news
Get our free newsletter from The Independent's Race Correspondent
Get our free newsletter from The Independent's Race Correspondent
A teacher who held a placard at a pro-Palestine protest depicting Rishi Sunak and Suella Braverman as coconuts has been found not guilty of a racially aggravated public order offence.
Marieha Hussain, 37, denied the prosecution’s allegation that the placard was “racially abusive” and her trial at Westminster Magistrates’ Court heard that she “quite obviously does not have a racist bone in her body”.
Ms Hussain denied and was acquitted of the charge on Friday, prompting claps and cheers from her supporters in the public gallery.
District Judge Vanessa Lloyd said: “I find that it was part of the genre of political satire and, as such, the prosecution have not proved to the criminal standard that it was abusive.
“The prosecution has also not proved to the criminal standard that you were aware that your placard may be abusive.”
Responding to the verdict, Ms Hussain said the conviction and trial had been “an agonising ordeal for my family and I”.
“The laws on hate speech must serve to protect us all, but this trial shows us that these laws are being weaponised to target ethnic minorities – and in my case also crack down on pro-Palestine political dissent,” she said.
“Instead of enjoying my pregnancy, I have been vilified in the media, lost my career and [been] dragged through the court system in what can only be described as a politically motivated show trial.”
Giving evidence, Ms Hussain said the placard was a “light-hearted piece of political banter”, a way to depict something serious in a “British satirical way”, the court heard.
In his closing speech, Rajiv Menon KC, defending, said: “This prosecution of Ms Hussain is … a disturbing attack on the right of freedom of expression; the right to peaceful protest that did not risk in any shape or form violence or public disorder; the right to anti-racists to criticise members of their own race for pursuing racist policies and using racist rhetoric; the right to satirise our politicians; the right to mock and tease and make fun of our politicians in a light-hearted way that Marieha Hussain attempted to do with her placard.
“That Marieha Hussain of all people is being prosecuted for a racially aggravated offence whilst the likes of Suella Braverman and Nigel Farage and Stephen Yaxley-Lennon – aka Tommy Robinson – and Frank Hester are seemingly free to make inflammatory and divisive statements … is, I’m afraid, incomprehensible to many people.”
Tory donor Mr Hester was alleged to have said that Diane Abbott – Britain’s first Black female MP – made him “want to hate all Black women” and that she “should be shot”.
Mr Menon said Ms Hussain is a woman of “impeccable character”, adding: “It would be a tragedy – I use that word advisedly – for her to be convicted of a racially aggravated offence when she quite obviously does not have a racist bone in her body.”
The court heard expert opinions on whether the term “coconut” is a racial slur. Mr Menon said experts struggled to see how the term could be capable of being a slur without “some qualifying word, behaviour, context” that racialises it.
“There is no racialising qualifier [in this case],” he added.
There is, in short, a gaping hole as far as the prosecution evidential case against Marieha Hussain is concerned and we say boldly that the crown has not even come close to meeting its burden to the criminal standard
He questioned why the prosecution did not produce an expert to say the term “coconut” is a racial slur and why they did not call someone who was offended by Ms Hussain’s placard to give evidence.
“There is, in short, a gaping hole as far as the prosecution evidential case against Marieha Hussain is concerned and we say boldly that the crown has not even come close to meeting its burden to the criminal standard,” Mr Menon said.
In a prepared statement read out to the court by the prosecution, Ms Hussain said she had attended the pro-Palestine protest with her family.
She said the placard was in opposition to an “exceptional manifestation of hatred towards vulnerable or minority groups emanating from the home secretary and supported by the prime minister”.
Prosecutor Jonathan Bryan said the term “coconut” was a “well-known racial slur which has a very clear meaning”.
He said: “You may be brown on the outside, but you’re white on the inside. In other words, you’re a race traitor – you’re less brown or Black than you should be.”
Mr Bryan added that Ms Hussain had “crossed the line between legitimate political expression” and moved into “racial insult”.
Mr Menon said previously that the “humorous and satirical” placard was “a pictorial attempt to criticise the policy of Rishi Sunak and, particularly, Suella Braverman and their race politics given what was happening at the time in the country”.
He told the court: “What she is saying is Suella Braverman – then home secretary, sacked two days after – was promoting in different ways a racist political agenda as evidenced by the Rwanda policy, the racist rhetoric she was using around small boats.
“And the prime minister was either quiescing to it or being inactive. It was a political criticism of these two particular politicians.”