Justice on Trial: Banksy at the Royal Courts

In September 2025, a striking new mural appeared overnight on the outer wall of the Royal Courts of Justice in London. The image, unmistakably in the style of Banksy, showed a judge in full wig and robes bringing a gavel down with violent force upon a protester sprawled on the ground. The protester’s placard, smeared with blood-red paint, provided the only colour in an otherwise stark monochrome design. Above them, a surveillance camera turned away from the scene, as if deliberately ignoring the violence it was meant to monitor. Within hours, Banksy confirmed the piece on his Instagram account with the simple caption, “Royal Courts Of Justice London.”

The mural immediately ignited a storm of interpretation and debate. It was not just an artwork, it was a statement delivered in one of the most symbolic locations imaginable. The Royal Courts of Justice represents the pinnacle of the legal system in Britain, an institution synonymous with impartiality and authority. By using this space as his canvas, Banksy reframed the courts not as protectors of rights but as instruments of repression. The mural appeared just a day after nearly nine hundred activists were arrested during government action against Palestine Action, an organisation newly declared a terrorist group. Against that backdrop, the mural was interpreted not as coincidence but as direct commentary.

The days that followed were filled with queues of Londoners trying to glimpse the work behind barriers, debates about its meaning on television and social media, and finally the swift intervention of the state to scrub the wall clean. Yet the act of erasure itself produced another image: a ghostly shadow of the judge and protester left faintly visible, somehow more poignant than the original.

The imagery and symbolism of the mural

The composition was both simple and devastating. Banksy chose the classic style of a stencil, using sharp black outlines on pale stone to create figures that were instantly recognisable. The judge’s wig and robes, exaggerated to full dramatic effect, symbolised the majesty of the law, but here the judge was not an arbiter of justice. He was an executioner, using his gavel as a weapon to strike down an unarmed protester.

The protester lay face down, body twisted, arms shielding their head in a futile gesture. The placard they clutched was bright with red paint dripping like blood, a shock of colour against the monochrome. This colour choice was deliberate. Banksy has long used selective colour to force the eye toward meaning, and here the crimson symbolised the cost of dissent. The placard, meant to represent free expression, was transformed into a symbol of injury and suppression.

Above the scene, the inclusion of a surveillance camera carried its own meaning. It was mounted just above the mural yet was turned away, refusing to witness the abuse. This suggested that the very systems designed to protect citizens were complicit in ignoring violence. Together, these elements created a narrative: authority in the form of the judiciary violently suppressing protest, with institutions of oversight deliberately blind.

Timing and political context

The placement of the mural was not random. Just a day before it appeared, the UK government had carried out a mass operation against Palestine Action, leading to nearly nine hundred arrests. The organisation had recently been declared a terrorist group, a move condemned by civil rights activists as an attack on legitimate protest.

In this context, the mural was understood as a direct response. The judge with his gavel symbolised not abstract authority but the very real use of the legal system to crush activism. The protester represented those arrested, silenced, and criminalised for challenging state policy. The bloodied placard suggested that protest, even when peaceful, was being met with violence.

For many observers, the work became a powerful visual shorthand for a broader moment in Britain. It suggested that the state was wielding the courts not as neutral guardians but as tools of punishment, silencing dissent with the weight of law. By placing the image on the very walls of the Royal Courts, Banksy turned the building itself into part of the message.

Public reaction

The mural drew immediate crowds. Word spread quickly through social media and traditional news outlets, and by morning lines of people had formed outside Carey Street. Some brought cameras, others simply wanted to stand in front of the image and take in its meaning. The barriers erected by authorities only added to the sense of drama, creating the feeling of an exhibition where the state itself was trying to restrict access.

Reactions were mixed but intense. Activists praised it as one of Banksy’s most important works, saying it gave voice to feelings of anger and betrayal that many protesters felt after the arrests. Supporters of Palestine Action described the mural as a validation of their struggle. Others, less sympathetic to the protests, admitted the image was unsettling in its rawness. Even those who did not agree with Banksy’s politics acknowledged that the work captured something visceral about power and authority.

On social media, the image went viral. Hashtags associated with the mural trended across Twitter, Instagram and TikTok. Memes appeared, digital edits circulated, and commentators debated whether it was vandalism or a legitimate political act. For ordinary Londoners, the fact that such an uncompromising image appeared on one of the country’s most sacred legal institutions was enough to spark fascination and conversation.

Government and institutional response

The official reaction was predictable in its speed. HM Courts and Tribunals Service issued a statement declaring that the mural could not remain because the building was Grade II listed and subject to preservation rules. Within hours, black plastic sheets were hung over the work, and security guards were stationed to prevent tampering. The covering only heightened public curiosity, with people peering through small openings to catch glimpses.

Within three days, removal crews were at work. Scrubbing and chemical treatments were applied to the wall, and by midweek the mural was officially gone. Ministers did not comment directly, but the silence spoke volumes. For many, the rapid erasure was interpreted as censorship rather than preservation. Critics argued that heritage laws were being used as a convenient justification to eliminate a piece that openly attacked state authority.

The faded remnant

Yet in trying to erase the mural, authorities inadvertently created something even more striking. The cleaning process could not completely remove the paint. A faint outline of the judge, the gavel, the protester, and the placard remained, ghostly and incomplete. The vivid red was gone, but shadows lingered like bruises on stone.

For many viewers, this faded remnant was more powerful than the original. It symbolised the persistence of dissent, the idea that protest cannot be fully erased. Even when authority scrubs away the surface, traces remain to remind us of what was once there. The ghostly version suggested resilience, endurance, and the futility of censorship. Social media users began referring to it as “the ghost Banksy,” sharing images of the faded form as if it were a new artwork in itself.

The attempt to wash away the image had given it another life, one that was quieter but more haunting. In its half-erased state, the mural captured the tension between power and protest even more poignantly.

Art as fleeting protest

Banksy has long embraced impermanence. Many of his works are destroyed, painted over, or removed within days. Yet this transience is part of the meaning. It suggests that art, like protest, is temporary, fragile, and always at risk of erasure. But it also shows that ideas, once released, cannot be contained.

The Royal Courts mural followed this tradition. Its short life, from sudden appearance to removal, mirrored the experience of protests themselves: visible for a moment, then stamped out. But the legacy endures through memory, photography, and in this case, the faded remnant on the wall. In that sense, the mural’s destruction became part of the artwork. The story is not just about what was painted but about what happened to it and how people responded.

Cultural and artistic significance

By choosing the Royal Courts of Justice, Banksy created one of his most confrontational site-specific works. The building is a symbol of authority, yet the mural turned it into a stage for critique. This act transformed architecture into commentary, reframing the courts not as neutral but as complicit.

The work also reaffirmed Banksy’s role as one of the few artists who can create a piece of public art that instantly becomes global news. His ability to inject political messages into everyday spaces gives his work cultural weight beyond the art world. The Royal Courts mural will be remembered not for its longevity but for its intensity, its boldness, and the conversations it provoked about power and justice.

Conclusion

The Banksy mural at the Royal Courts of Justice was one of the most direct confrontations between art and authority in recent memory. Its imagery of a judge using a gavel as a weapon captured the mood of a country where legal power is increasingly wielded against protest. The public responded with fascination and outrage, the government with silence and swift erasure. Yet the attempt to wipe it away only gave it new meaning.

The faint shadow that remains is more poignant than the original, a ghostly reminder that authority can never fully silence dissent. The mural has become a metaphor for protest itself: fragile, temporary, subject to repression, but always leaving traces behind. In targeting the Royal Courts, Banksy placed justice itself on trial, and even though the paint is gone, the questions it raised remain.

FAQs

When did the mural appear?
It appeared overnight on 7 September 2025.

What did the mural depict?
It showed a judge in wig and robes striking a protester with a gavel, with a blood-smeared placard.

Why did Banksy create it?
It is widely interpreted as a response to the government crackdown on Palestine Action and broader suppression of protest.

How did the public react?
Crowds gathered to view it, activists praised it, and social media spread it globally.

Why was it removed?
Authorities cited preservation of the Grade II listed building, though many saw it as censorship.

What remains now?
A faint, ghostly outline is still visible, making the mural more poignant in its faded form.

Topics