Teacher taken to court for depicting Rishi Sunak and Suella Braverman as coconuts is cleared

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.

Outside court after the hearing, Ms Hussain said: ‘The damage done to my reputation and image can never be undone.

‘The laws on hate speech must serve to protect us more but this trial shows that these rules are being weaponised to target ethnic minorities.

Marieha Mohsin Hussain (pictured centre) was seen with a banner depicting Suella Braverman and Mr Sunak as coconuts, which is a racist term used to imply that someone has betrayed their race

Officers detained and arrested scores of counter-protesters at the rally on November 11

A counter-protester is detained by police in Parliament Square in central London on November 4

‘It goes without saying that this ordeal has been agonising for my family and I. Instead of enjoying my pregnancy I’ve been vilified by media, I’ve lost my career, I’ve been dragged through the court system.

‘Nearly a year on from the genocide in Gaza, and despite this trial, I’m more determined than ever to continue using my voice to defend Palestine.’

Clearing Ms Hussain, 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.’

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.’

Mr Menon said Ms Hussain is a woman of ‘impeccable character’, adding: ‘She is a responsible and thoughtful citizen who genuinely cares about the plight of those less fortunate than her, who is prepared to exercise her democratic right to peaceful protest against injustice.’

‘We submit that she should not be criminalised for her satirical coconut placard,’ the barrister continued.

‘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 opinion 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.

Several people were detained by police at the march in central London on November 11

Protesters hold flares during the pro-Palestinian protest in London on November 11

Counter-protesters clash with police in Parliament Square in central London, during pro-Palestinian protest march

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 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 court by the prosecution, Ms Hussain, of Brands Hill Avenue, High Wycombe, 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’.

She added in the statement: ‘I find it astonishing it could be conceived as a message of hate.’

An image on the other side of the placard depicted the former home secretary as ‘Cruella Braverman’, Ms Hussain said in her statement.

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.’