The latest tranche of Just Stop Oil soup slingers have appeared in court.
Mary Patricia Somerville, 77, of Bradford; Stephen (Ludi) Simpson, 71, of Bradford; and Phillipa (Phil) Green, 24, of Cornwall, appeared in custody at Westminster Magistrates' Court on Monday, 30th September 2024.
The three defendants denied an offence of criminal damage, in relation to an incident on Friday, 27th September 2024, where they were filmed throwing tomato soup at two of Van Gogh's famous Sunflower paintings in the National Gallery.
Criminal damage is an offence under section 1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. Where the value of damage exceeds £5,000, as is likely to be the situation here, the offence is triable either way. In this case the maximum penalty is 26 weeks' custody and/or a fine at level 5 (unlimited) on summary conviction; 10 years' custody on conviction on indictment. I have previously written a guide to the offence of criminal damage, which readers may find of interest.
James Bowker, prosecuting, told the court that the antique wooden frames of the paintings had been damaged, with each one expected to cost between £10,000 and £20,000 to restore. One of the frames was owned by the National Gallery, the other was on loan from the Philidelphia Museum of Art.
Raj Chada, defending (presumably as duty dog, as JSO activists don't like to pay for representation), said: "There was no damage to the paintings whatsoever.
"They have been covered by a very thick protective glass screen."
Mr Chada added that the extent of damage to the frames, if any, had not yet been quantified.
Given the potential values involved, DJ Neeta Minhas declined jurisdiction and sent the matter to Southwark Crown Court for trial.
She granted the defendants conditional bail ahead of their next hearing on Monday, 28th October 2024.
Their conditions prohibit them from entering the area within the M25 other than for attending prearranged court hearings.
You are probably wondering how these defendants can deny the offence given the overwhelming video evidence of their actions. I have previously discussed the offence of criminal damage at length. In order for the offence to be made out the Crown must prove that damage was caused either deliberately or recklessly and without lawful excuse.
The defence in this case, in common with most other Just Stop Oil cases, will undoubtedly revolve around the issue of lawful excuse. Just Stop Oil defendants often attempt to justify their actions as emergency action needed to save the planet from impending climate doom. They quite like Crown Court trials because they only need to sell that defence to one or two jurors in order to secure acquittal.
It's a defence that has been rejected by the Court of Appeal, but that doesn't stop it being put forward. You can read more of my thoughts about ideological defences in an earlier article.
5 comments:
It’s fair to assume, as the last occasion, that the fabulous frame was damaged to the value of £8,000. The DJ (presumably) will have to pass this to Crown as the mags sentencing powers are limited. Judge Hehir got it right I think, evidenced by his excellent sentencing remarks.
I'm definitely no fan of JSO, but if there was in fact no damage to the picture or frame a charge of criminal damage is bound to fail at Trial.
The DJ has kicked it up the the Crown Court, yes. Had she not, then I'm sure they would have elected Crown Court anyway. It's not them having to foot the bill for it.
There is damage - you can see the painting is covered in soup, which is impairing the value or usefulness of it. That is all that is needed in terms of damage. It does not need to be permanent. The position in law is quite clear about that. However, that's the sort of observation, legally meritless as it may be, that they can use to steer the jury.
The historic, valuable frame was damaged by the acid in the soup to the value of £8,000 and Plummer was also sentenced for an offence against national infrastructure committed previously. The fact she attempted to damage a world treasure (the artwork itself) was taken into account. Her only (non) mitigation was her climate motive. Please read the judge's sentencing remarks.
Post a Comment