The ongoing climate crisis has sparked a wave of activism across the globe, with movements like Just Stop Oil at the forefront of public attention.
While the environmental message resonates with many, the methods employed by some activists have led to significant legal consequences. In recent months, a high-profile case involving two Just Stop Oil activists, Plummer and Holland, has attracted widespread media coverage.
The two activists threw tomato soup at Van Gogh’s famous Sunflowers painting in an effort to draw media attention to their climate activism.
Here, we’ll explore the sentencing of these activists, the legal considerations involved, and what this means for future cases.
The Crimes and the Sentences
In September 2024, two Just Stop Oil protestors were sentenced for vandalism causing £10,000 worth of damage. The vandalism involved the defacement of a cultural and heritage asset—a key aggravating factor in the sentences received. Plummer was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, while Holland received 20 months.
These sentences were handed down after careful consideration of the sentencing guidelines, which provide a structured approach to determining appropriate punishment for criminal offences, particularly those involving high levels of harm and culpability.
When considering criminal damage at this level, the judge must weigh the value of the damage caused, the intent and planning behind the crime, and any aggravating or mitigating factors. In these cases, the damage caused was significant, warranting a hearing in the Crown Court.
Culpability and Harm
Sentencing is always a careful balancing act, with several key factors coming into play. For offences of criminal damage, culpability and harm are central to determining the severity of the sentence.
- Culpability: In this case, the activists’ actions demonstrated a high level of planning, placing their culpability in Level A. This is the highest level of culpability under sentencing guidelines, reserved for offenders who engage in deliberate, well-thought-out actions. The fact that this vandalism was part of a planned protest, and not an impulsive act, elevated the severity of the crime.
- Harm: The harm caused was substantial. With damage totalling £10,000, the case fell into Category One, which denotes high harm. When assessing harm, the financial impact is the only one consideration. Here, the damage was not only financial but also cultural, as the targeted asset was of significant value to society. This added weight to the sentencing decision, as damaging cultural heritage is considered more serious than damaging ordinary property.
Aggravating Factors
In addition to culpability and harm, the court must also consider any aggravating factors that could influence the sentence. In this case, several factors worked against the activists, leading to more severe penalties.
The most significant aggravating factor was the damage caused to a heritage or cultural asset. In cases where the property targeted holds cultural, historical, or social significance, the court typically views the offence more seriously. Such damage is seen as an attack on shared history and values, not just on property.
In Plummer’s case, further aggravating factors included a history of offending. Plummer had already been found guilty of another offence related to Just Stop Oil protests, and just five days after the verdict was arrested again for spraying paint on Heathrow’s departure boards. This repeated behaviour suggests a pattern of offending that the court could not ignore.
When considering whether a sentence should be suspended, judges look for evidence that the individual is likely to engage in rehabilitation. In Plummer’s case, their actions indicated a low likelihood of reform, reinforcing the decision to impose a custodial sentence.
Sentencing Guidelines in Practice
The sentences handed down to Plummer and Holland fall within the range provided by the sentencing guidelines for offences of this nature. The starting point for offences involving Level A culpability and Category one harm is a custodial sentence of one year and six months. The available sentencing range extends from six months to four years in custody. In this case, both sentences are on the middle to higher end of the scale, which is justified by the aggravating factors involved, particularly the significant damage to a cultural asset and the lack of prospects for rehabilitation, particularly in Plummer’s case.
The judge, in arriving at these sentences, applied the guidelines meticulously. There was no apparent deviation from what would be expected in a case involving this level of planning, harm, and reoffending.
Factors Against Suspension
When determining whether to suspend a custodial sentence, judges must consider whether the benefits of suspension—such as rehabilitation or deterrence—outweigh the need for immediate imprisonment.
In cases involving activists, particularly those motivated by ideological beliefs, judges often assess whether the individual is likely to desist from criminal behaviour. For example, would a suspended sentence encourage rehabilitation, or is the individual likely to re-offend, given their commitment to a cause?
In Plummer’s case, the judge found no convincing argument for suspension. Having been convicted of a similar offence and reoffending within days, Plummer showed no inclination toward rehabilitation.
This pattern of behaviour provided strong justification for the imposition of a custodial sentence. The court could not overlook the fact that Plummer was arrested for a further offence just days after their guilty verdict, reinforcing the decision not to suspend the sentence.
The Role of Just Stop Oil Activism
Just Stop Oil protests, like many other forms of activism, present a complex legal challenge. On one hand, activists argue that their actions are a form of civil disobedience, aimed at drawing attention to important societal issues, such as environmental protection and climate change. On the other hand, when these actions cause significant damage to property, especially cultural assets, the legal system is compelled to respond.
The sentencing in these cases demonstrates the courts’ approach to balancing the right to protest with the rule of law. While peaceful protest is a protected right, causing damage to property, especially heritage sites, crosses a legal line.
Activism, even when motivated by noble causes, does not exempt individuals from the consequences of criminal behaviour. The courts must uphold the law while recognising the broader societal context in which these protests take place.
The sentences handed down to Plummer and Holland are a clear reflection of the law’s stance on activism that crosses into criminal damage, particularly when that damage affects cultural or heritage assets.
As the Just Stop Oil movement continues to make headlines, these sentences may well serve as a precedent for how the courts will handle similar cases in the future.
Contact Our Specialists
Our criminal defence team is able to provide advice to defendants who were unrepresented in their interview or are unhappy with their current representation. Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact us on 0161 969 3131 or fill in our contact form and we’ll be in touch