The trial is scheduled for tomorrow of four men, one of them a dealer, charged with handling tainted artefacts. To recap ('
Four in court accused of dealing "tainted cultural objects"..' Hereford Times 28th November 2018),
Four metal detectorists have denied illegally dealing "tainted cultural objects" after uncovering a haul of Anglo-Saxon and Viking treasure near Leominster.
George Powell, 37, Layton Davies, 50, Paul Wells, 59, and Simon Wicks, 56, are accused of digging up the hoard of artefacts in 2015 and failing to declare it as treasure.
The relics found near Leominster included gold and silver coins, a gold ring, a gold arm bracelet and a crystal sphere as well as silver ingots. [...] Judge Jim Tindal told the quartet that their trial will last for four weeks and begin on [...] September 30, 2019.
If found guilty they could face a maximum prison sentence of seven years as well as a fine under the Dealing in Cultural Objects Offences Act 2003.
When it says "stole" the coins in the Daily Mail today (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7534935/Metal-detectorist-stole-3million-Anglo-Saxon-coins-field-Worcester-Crown-Court.html),
ReplyDeleteit implies the criminal act was theft from the landowner.
But what that Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/27/pdfs/ukpga_20030027_en.pdf) says that it is 'removing or excavating' archaeological objects that is the offence.
How many times have you heard of metal detectorists being prosecuted under this 2003 Act Paul? And what was the legal argument? Everything would have been OK if they'd reported the find under the Treasure Act, and promised to split the money with the landowner, even though they still did the 'removing or excavating' themselves, and even if they sold the artefacts on in exactly the same way they did in this case? They sold through Antiquities dealers and a well-established auction house, not on the 'Black Market'...
And what about cases where archaeological material didn't fall under the Treasure Act, and the 'removing or excavating' was done by metal detectorists, who then sold the stuff via the usual Art Market channels? Has anyone ever been prosecuted for that?
Thanks for your comment. Yes, it was that phrase "tainted" that raised my interest, but as you say, the current court case seems to be going just for "normal" theft of property. No the 2003 "Dealing" act probably will not be used again for a UK "metal detecting offence" as the only time an attempt was made, it was overturned on appeal (probably because the "excavation" in that case was not shown to be illegal) and the whole thing was a disastrous botch. And it is the same here, it is (sadly) not illegal to "excavate" a Treasure find, as you say, the TA requires its reporting, and not doing so is the offence. Going back to the 2003 law, it is not fit for the purpose (for any purpose) and needs to be rewritten.
ReplyDeletehttp://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2010/07/crown-versus-kate-harding-overturned.html