The trial was not if the Colston statue was offensive
It was was did they commit criminal damage, which as they did not dispute the roles they had played in pulling down the statue and throwing it in the River Avon ( which of course was criminal damage ) seems the trial was a bit of a farce
The defence arguing what they did was justified because they thought the statue was offensive isn't really defence for criminal damage
Jake Skuse ( one of the guys ) said "knew he was in the right" and that it was "what the people of Bristol wanted".