The National Gallery in London spent just £150 to retouch the frame of Vincent van Gogh's famous "Sunflowers" painting after climate activists threw tomato soup at the artwork in October 2022. This minimal repair cost stands in stark contrast to the criminal damage estimate of £8,000 to £10,000 that led to the conviction of the two Just Stop Oil protesters, who received a combined sentence of three and a half years in prison.
Anna Holland and Phoebe Plummer, members of the climate activism group Just Stop Oil, threw cans of Heinz tomato soup at the iconic 1888 painting before gluing themselves to the gallery wall. The dramatic protest grabbed international headlines and sparked widespread debate about activism tactics. The painting itself, valued at £86 million, remained completely undamaged thanks to a protective glass panel that covered the artwork.
However, the painting's 17th-century Italian frame was not protected by glass and sustained damage from the soup. According to an email obtained through a Freedom of Information request by Novara Media, the museum's head of framing Peter Schade estimated the actual cost of retouching the frame at £150 in staff time and materials. The gallery also spent approximately £250 in labor time to restore the wall and £35 on a tin of paint.
The painting was temporarily removed from display immediately after the incident, received the necessary touch-up work on its frame, and was returned to public view within just a few hours. When asked whether the gallery planned to perform a more comprehensive restoration of the frame, officials declined to comment on their future plans.
During the trial at Southwark Crown Court, testimony revealed that the cost to retouch the frame sufficiently for it to be rehung was "not substantial." While the £150 figure was mentioned during proceedings, this detail received little media attention at the time. Court officials noted that a more extensive repair would cost significantly more money.
Judge Christopher Hehir made several controversial rulings during the trial that have drawn criticism from legal experts and human rights advocates. He determined that the actual value of the damage was irrelevant for the jury's consideration and prohibited any mention of the climate crisis in Holland and Plummer's defense. Judge Hehir is known for his particularly harsh treatment of climate activists in his courtroom.
The case highlights a significant discrepancy between how English law assesses criminal damage and real-world repair costs. According to Blackstone's Criminal Practice, the manual used by criminal lawyers, practitioners should use either the probable market cost of repairs or the probable market replacement cost, whichever is lower, when estimating criminal damage value. Importantly, the law does not require consideration of the actual amount paid to repair or retouch damaged items.
When sentencing the pair, Judge Hehir cited reasons beyond the frame damage for imposing such lengthy prison terms - 20 months for Holland and two years for Plummer. "It is not the value of the damage caused to the frame that is the most serious aspect of your offending," Hehir stated. "You came within the thickness of a pane of glass of irreparably damaging or even destroying this priceless treasure, and that must be reflected in the sentences I pass."
The severity of the sentences sparked significant controversy among legal experts and human rights advocates. Human rights lawyer Aabhinav Tyagi wrote a critical response on Just Stop Oil's blog, arguing that Judge Hehir's remarks about the activists coming close to damaging the painting were problematic. "By prioritizing speculative risks over concrete facts, the judge imposed a sentence that does not reflect the severity of the actual offense," Tyagi wrote.
Tyagi further argued that "sentencing should address the specific harm caused by the defendants' actions, not punish them for imagined outcomes. This deviation sets a dangerous legal precedent where individuals can be penalized for potential consequences rather than their proven conduct." His criticism highlighted concerns about the judicial system's treatment of climate activists.
In a show of defiance, three Just Stop Oil activists targeted the same "Sunflowers" painting again with another soup-throwing action on the very day Holland and Plummer were sentenced in September. This repeat protest demonstrated the group's commitment to their cause despite the harsh legal consequences faced by their fellow activists.
According to the organization Rebels in Prison, there are currently 17 activists being held in English prisons, with the majority being members of Just Stop Oil and Palestine Action. This number reflects the broader crackdown on environmental and political activism in the United Kingdom.
Jolyon Maugham, director of The Good Law Project, a progressive organization that campaigns for legal reform, offered a broader perspective on the case. Speaking to Novara Media, Maugham said, "English law's treatment of those protesting the destruction of the planet for profit perfectly accords with Wilhoit's law that 'There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.'" His comments suggest that the legal system may be applying different standards to different groups of people based on their political positions and social status.
