Protester Who Damaged Stone of Destiny Cabinet with Hammer Spared Jail
Joe Madden, a 22-year-old protester associated with the campaign group This is Rigged, has avoided a jail sentence after causing £3,000 worth of damage to a display cabinet containing the Stone of Destiny and a crown in Edinburgh. Madden was part of a group of activists that included Jamie Priest, 26, and Catriona Roberts, 22, who were also not imprisoned for their involvement in the protest that took place on November 15, 2023.
Madden admitted to using a hammer, rock, chisel, and similar tools to vandalise the display cabinet at Edinburgh Sheriff Court. The court heard that a tour guide witnessed Madden attempting to smash the cabinet with a stone while another individual sprayed paint on it during the incident. As a result, Madden was sentenced to a community payback order and 180 hours of unpaid work by Sheriff Kenneth Campbell at the court hearing.
The Stone of Destiny holds significant historical importance, having been used in the inauguration of Scottish monarchs for centuries until it was seized by King Edward I of England in 1296. After being incorporated into a coronation chair at Westminster Abbey, it was later returned to Scotland and is currently displayed at Edinburgh Castle.
In 1950, the Stone of Destiny was famously stolen from Westminster Abbey by a group of students in a bid to promote Scottish independence. Despite the stone being split in two during the theft, it was later recovered and has since been used in various coronation ceremonies. In 1996, the stone was officially returned to Scotland and put on public display at Edinburgh Castle.
The recent incident involving Madden serves as a reminder of the stone’s historical significance and the strong emotions it continues to evoke in those who advocate for political causes. While acts of vandalism are not condoned, the passion and symbolism attached to objects like the Stone of Destiny underscore the complexities of Scotland’s history and ongoing debates surrounding independence and sovereignty. The court’s decision to impose a non-custodial sentence reflects a balance between accountability for actions and the recognition of underlying motivations that drive such protests.