Vandalism of public property is clearly OK under certain circumstances.
I would have thought the trial ought to have been about criminal damage and nothing else. The morality or otherwise of Colston was not on trial and is irrelevant.
The initial reason for the statue was to commemorate Colston's philanthropy and sundry good works. The involvement in slavery was on the debit side, but the almshouses on the credit side. I have often wondered if the protestors wanting his statue removed (a perfectly laudable aim) had
their lives assessed on a debit and credit side basis how much philanthropy would be on their credit side.
It may well be good that the statue is now in a museum, it ought in any event be a visual reminder that even those who do good can have an evil strain in their behaviour that the former doesn't annul or excuse.
Still, we can now get to work on anything commemorating Marx, he doesn't appear to have anything on the credit side ...