A teacher who carried a banner depicting Rishi Sunak and Suella Braverman as coconuts at a pro-Palestinian protest has been acquitted of racially aggravated public disorder.
Marieha Hussain, 37, rejected the prosecution’s claim that the banner contained a “racial slur” and told her trial at Westminster Magistrates’ Court that “it is clear there is not a racist bone in her body”.
Ms Hussain denied the charges and was acquitted on Friday, drawing applause and cheers from supporters in the crowd.
Speaking outside the court after the hearing, Ms Hussain said: “The damage done to my reputation and image can never be repaired.
“Hate speech laws should be designed to protect us more, but this case shows that these rules are being weaponised to target ethnic minorities.
“Needless to say this ordeal has been painful for my family and me. Instead of enjoying my pregnancy, I was vilified by the media, lost my career, and dragged through the court system.
“Almost a year has passed since the genocide in Gaza, and despite this trial, I am more determined than ever to use my voice to defend Palestine.”
Clearing Ms Hussain, District Judge Vanessa Lloyd said: “I consider this to be part of the political satire genre and therefore the prosecution has failed to prove that this was misconduct to criminal standards.
“The prosecution also failed to prove, to criminal law standards, that you were aware that your banner might be harassing.”
Giving evidence in court, Ms Hussain said the banner was a “light piece of political banter”, a way of portraying something serious in a “British satirical style”.
In his closing remarks, defending, Rajiv Menon KC said: “This prosecution of Ms Hussain… is a disturbing attack on the right to freedom of expression; the right to peaceful protest that carries no risk of violence or public disorder; the right of anti-racists to criticise members of their own race for pursuing racist policies and using racist rhetoric; the right to lampoon our politicians; the right to mock, tease and make fun of our politicians, as Marieha Hussain attempted to do with her banner.
“That Marieha Hussain is on trial for a racist crime and that people like Suella Braverman, Nigel Farage, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (aka Tommy Robinson) and Frank Hester have the freedom to make inflammatory and divisive statements… is, I fear, incomprehensible to many.”
Mr Menon described Ms Hussain as a woman of “impeccable character”, adding: “She is a responsible and thoughtful citizen who genuinely cares about the plight of those less fortunate than herself and is prepared to exercise her democratic right to peacefully protest against injustice.”
“We argue that he should not be considered guilty because of his satirical coconut banner,” the lawyer continued.
“It would be a tragedy for him to be convicted of a racist crime – I use that word deliberately – when it’s clear he doesn’t have a racist bone in his body.”
The court heard expert opinions on whether the term “coconut” was a racial slur.
Menon said experts were struggling to understand how the term could be an insult without “certain qualifying words, behaviors, contexts” that racist it.
“There is no racist qualifier (in this case),” he added.
He questioned why the prosecutor’s office did not bring in an expert who would say that the term “coconut” was a racial slur, and why they did not call someone who was offended by Hüseyin’s banner to testify.
“In short, there is a huge gap in the prosecution case against Marieha Hussain and we boldly say that the Taj has not even come close to fulfilling its obligations in terms of criminal standards,” Menon said.
In a prepared statement read to the court by the prosecution, Ms Hussain, of Brands Hill Avenue, High Wycombe, said she had attended the pro-Palestinian protest with her family.
He said the banner was against “an exceptional display of hatred towards vulnerable or minority groups, originating from the Minister of Home Affairs and supported by the Prime Minister”.
“It is surprising that this could be perceived as a hate message,” the statement said.
In her statement, Ms Hussain said the image on the other side of the banner depicted the former home secretary as “Cruella Braverman”.
Prosecutor Jonathan Bryan said the term “coconut” was “a well-known racial slur with a very clear meaning”.
He said: “You may be dark on the outside but you are white on the inside. In other words, you are a race traitor – you are less dark or black than you should be.”
Mr Bryan added that Ms Hussain had “crossed the line between legitimate political expression and racial slur” and had reached the point of “racial slur”.
Menon had previously said the “funny and satirical” banner was “a pictorial attempt to criticise the policies and racial politics of Rishi Sunak and particularly Suella Braverman, given what was happening in the country at the time”.
He told the court: “What he said was that Suella Braverman, who was the interior minister at the time and was sacked two days later, promoted a racist political agenda in various ways, as evidenced by the racist rhetoric she used on Rwandan policy and on small boats.
“And the prime minister was either silent on this or inactive. This was a political criticism of these two politicians.”