Buckingham Palace fountain protest caused £7k of damage – court

Shina Animashaun, defending Mr Ings, Mr McKechnie and Ms Smith, asked Mr Turner why the water feature had required the emergency clean – which costs extra – instead of just being cleaned on a routine basis.

“The key thing about this is that the marble is porous,” he replied, adding that if the marble had not been cleaned immediately it risked the dye seeping in and staining the stone.

Mr Ings, who gave evidence to the court, was asked what he believed would happen after the dye was released into the fountain.

“That it would simply leave a mark that would wash away,” he said.

He added that he did not consider that the dye would not clean off.

“I did not believe that there would be damage at any point,” Mr Ings said.

He said he accepted that the water feature was cleaned, but he did not accept that cleaning amounted to proof of criminal damage.

Mr Bennett, of Fish Ponds Road, Bristol, Mr Ings, of no fixed address, Mr McKechnie, of Claremont Road, Dorset, Ms Steele, of Capworth Street, east London, and Ms Smith, of Chadwick Street, Leeds, each deny one count of criminal damage.

The trial continues.