Grenfell model bonfire film was 'distasteful joke'

A video of a cardboard model of Grenfell Tower being burned on a bonfire was a "distasteful joke", the High Court has heard.

The clip was recorded at a party in south London a year after the fire, which killed 72 people.

Paul Bussetti, 47, was cleared of posting the "grossly offensive" video, which was shared widely online and prompted outrage, in August 2019.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is appealing against his acquittal.

The clip of the cardboard building, which had "Grenfell Tower" written on it, was recorded at a party attended by about 30 people in south London on 3 November 2018, Westminster Magistrates' Court heard.

It was later uploaded to YouTube and sparked outrage, with a relative of one of the 72 people who died in the blaze on 14 June 2017 calling it "revolting".

Mr Bussetti, of South Norwood, was accused of sending "grossly offensive" material via a public communications network.

Mr Bussetti, then 47, was found not guilty after a two-day trial at Westminster Magistrates' Court in August 2019.

Magistrates said they could not be sure the film was that taken by Mr Bussetti after it was revealed a second video from the party had also been shared on WhatsApp.

He told magistrates the effigy had been created by his friend and the characters featured on the model were meant to represent "the majority of people that were at the party", not people who died in the disaster.

Mr Bussetti's lawyer, Mark Summers QC, said: "The context here is a private, ill-judged, distasteful joke shared among, and only among, those who would understand it to be a joke."

However, the barrister later said Mr Bussetti was "not somebody who deserves sympathy".

The previous trial heard Mr Bussetti had sent "truly offensive" messages, including using racial slurs for black and south Asian people.

The CPS is asking the High Court to decide if the magistrate was "wrong in law" to acquit Mr Bussetti.

At the High Court on Tuesday, John McGuinness QC, for the CPS, said both videos of the incident would be "materially similar" as the bonfire lasted only a few minutes and was in a confined space.

Mr McGuinness said: "It is somewhat unlikely in the extreme that the video the respondent did take did not contain that which could be seen in the video that was exhibited in evidence before the judge below."

Lord Justice Bean and Mr Justice Dove reserved their judgment, to be given at a later date.