Two pro-Palestinian activists found guilty of criminal damage after attacking the Picasso masterpiece Motherhood in the National Gallery have been spared jail.
NHS worker Jai Halai, 25, and political science student Monday-Malachi Rosenfeld, 23, pasted a poster of a Gazan mother and child over the 125-year-old painting before pouring red paint on the floor on October 9, 2024.
The pair were convicted of criminal damage by a jury at Southwark Crown Court following a trial in July.
But today, Halai and Rosenfeld, who are members of the direct action group Youth Demand, avoided jail time. Instead, they were all given a 12-month community order with 80 hours of unpaid work.
Sentencing, Judge David Tomlinson said: ‘You both joined a protest group called Youth Demand. You staged an incident for a work of art called ‘Motherhood’.
‘For what turned out to be a very brief moment, you attached to the Picasso a modern image of a mother and child in distress.
“You tried to raise awareness of the plight of innocent people and especially mothers and young people in Gaza.”
“It is agreed that you have not attempted to damage the artwork or the transparent casing and frame.”
The two activists walked into Room 43 of the National Gallery just after noon and pasted up a photo of a Gaza mother clutching her child over the protective glass.
Michael Willie, head of security and facilities at the National Gallery, gave evidence earlier in the trial and previously told jurors that no charges would have been incurred if paint had not been poured on the floor
Footage played in court showed guards trying in vain to pull the pair away from the painting as they revealed the photo of the Palestinian mother.
They then poured water-based paint over the wooden floor before chanting “Free.” Palestine‘ when they were taken from the gallery.
In another clip, protesters were heard shouting: ‘The UK is complicit in genocide [in Palestine]. Women give birth without any medical care.’
They also claimed that “87 percent” of the public supported an arms embargo on Israel and called for a “democratic revolution.”
The judge said the audience in the stands was “displaced and the enjoyment of what was on display was curtailed.”
He admitted that ‘no heritage artwork was actually damaged’.
“I have taken into account your respective ages, you were both in your early twenties at the time you committed this offence,” the judge said.
Toby Manhire, prosecuting, previously said: ‘They deliberately targeted ‘Motherhood’, a painting by Pablo Picasso.
The pair covered Picasso’s ‘Motherhood’ painting in the National Gallery with a poster of a mother and child from Gaza. They were both found guilty of criminal damage but spared jail
‘It was specifically chosen and pre-planned because of the striking similarity between that painting and the poster that was stuck to it.
“They tried to put that poster on the front window of the painting. Mrs. Rosenfeld poured her bottle of paint on the floor.
“The defendants accepted that they were acting politically.”
Laura O’Brien, defending, said: ‘Mrs Rosenfeld told the court how her upbringing was shaped by her Jewish faith and her artistic family, with her mother being an artist.’
“A combination of art and her faith and a desire to change the world led Ms. Rosenfeld to become involved in this action, and it set the parameters she set for her involvement.”
‘This is not a case of vandalism. There is no permanent damage.’
Katie McFadden said on behalf of Halai: “I want to emphasize that Mr. Halai had a conscientious motivation for participating in this protest.”
Ms McFadden said previous bombings of Gaza had hit Halai.
The activists chanted “free Palestine” as they were escorted out of the gallery
‘He explained how the images were burned into his brain.
“He has been a law-abiding citizen and is at low risk of recidivism.”
Michael Willie, head of security and facilities at the National Gallery, previously gave evidence and told jurors that no costs would have been incurred if paint had not been poured on the floor.
He said: ‘There was paint on the marble skirting boards, uprights and rope barriers and it was seeping into the greenhouses.’
When asked by prosecutor Toby Manhire how serious the damage was, he said: ‘We only had to replace the stains in the grains of the marble, the mastic compound, in its entirety.
“It’s safe to assume [the paint] could be cleaned up enough to reopen the gallery.’
Asked if there was a “clear case of permanent damage”, he said: “No, not at that time.”
But while the stunt cost a total of £8,000, only £271.59 was attributed to the cleaning.
Ms McFadden said it was an ‘aesthetic decision’ to make the National Gallery ‘look chic’.
Jurors heard that four workers were paid £120 an hour that evening ‘to replace the flooring as a result of the cleaning process the gallery has undertaken.’
Mr Willie said the works were necessary to ‘ensure the Gallery was presentable to the public the following morning.’
He said the work included sanding the floor and refinishing it, otherwise ‘bandages’ would be left behind after cleaning.
Jurors were told the National Gallery had to pay £250.28 in ‘response costs’, being the ‘time it took to reopen the gallery’.
Ms O’Brien said the gallery would have been prepared to deal with such incidents with so many visitors every day, adding: ‘Such things happen in the National Gallery.’
Mr. Willie said, “Not so, but you do get leaks, little one.”
Halai, from Barnet, north London, and Rosenfeld, from Tower Hamlets, denied but were convicted of criminal damage.
