.
Dear Colleagues,
Since the authorities won’t explain the law of property to artefact hunters for fear of offending them, I will: taking finds home without the permission of the owner is stealing. The fact thousands of you do it doesn’t make it not so, nor does saying you’re absolutely sure the owner wouldn’t mind. It’s stealing. The issue is exemplified in a recent (now hidden) post on the Detecting Wales forum:
Hi Folks
I need some good advice on a situation I’m in with the farmer of my local permission. Last week i found a Saxon Penny on his land and today i took it to the Fitzwilliam Museum Cambridge for the Saxon coins expert to view,he confirmed the date and moneyer ect ect. He also suggested its value which shocked me, however the coins expert wouldn’t give me a proper value as its against their policy There lies the problem i haven’t told the farmer yet as i wanted a proper identification first, And being my first proper permission i was very naive and didnt even think of a contract (in future i will) I want to do the right thing and tell him but dont know how to exactly, the way i see it ive got 3 choices.
1 Suggest that i sell it and give him half the value
2 suggest he buys it from me and give me half
3 i buy it from him and give him the money
Now the 3rd option is out as i cant afford to spend that amount (my wife would divorce me) Which leaves me with the other two options the second option would mean i would need to get a proper valuation and i dont know where to get that from. or is there another way around this????
Any help or advice you can offer would be hugely appreciated.
Can you believe it? These are our artefacts and by law only we have the right to decide what happens to them. Imagine people secretly taking stuff home from Tesco’s claiming a belief Tesco’s wouldn’t mind if they knew – and saying that anyway it didn’t matter as they intended to bring it back when it suited them, honest! It’s no different with us yet for 15 years the Government and its agents have conspicuously avoided saying so, thereby enhancing the convenience of artefact hunters and damaging the interests of us farmers.
It’s a damn scandal. Mr Bland of PAS complains the Heritage Journal is too critical of PAS but we farmers should be saying: “not critical enough!”
Silas Brown
_____________________________________________________________
For more from Farmer Brown put Silas in the search box.
_____________________________________________________________
More Heritage Action views on metal detecting and artefact collecting
_____________________________________________________________
The Heritage Journal 
29 comments
Comments feed for this article
23/06/2013 at 21:05
Peter
A find of 660 silver coins in a pot…. etc.
23/06/2013 at 23:10
heritageaction
Once again:
We believe metal detecting should be legally regulated to ensure best practice and maximum public benefit. The world’s archaeologists agree. We are disinclined to provide a platform for those British detectorists who oppose that aim. Any artefact hunter wishing to comment please clarify you support comprehensive regulation else it won’t be published. Thanks.
24/06/2013 at 17:47
Luna
This got me thinking of what is the definition of stealing. I am engineer and go onto customers sites to repair things and sometimes have to take a component back to my workshop to repair it and to return it later. I don’t ask the customer permission, I just take it, fix it and return it. So, is this stealing?
The dictionary defines stealing as;
verb (past stole /stəʊl/; past participle stolen /ˈstəʊlən/)
1 [with object] take (another person’s property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it:
I am of the opinion that metal detecting should be comprehensively regulated for the benefit of all but in this case I think the definition of the verb ‘steal’ should be considered as it is not as simple as just taking something from someone else. The intent behind it is what defines stealing. If we get too OTT then the country would be littered with legal documents whenever someone takes something that belongs to someone else for whatever reason.
24/06/2013 at 19:04
Silas Brown
Artefact hunters do not take things home to repair them. They take them home because they want to.
It’s hardly littering the country with legal documents to hold that as deeply wrong. Ask Tesco’s.
Why should farmers be expected to accept things that shops don’t?
24/06/2013 at 19:17
Luna
Of course metal detectorists don’t take things home to repair them do they? The point in question and the one raised here is taking something with an intention to return something, as your letter clearly points out.By definition, this is not stealing. As for Tesco’s, so what about the repair man that comes to fix a freezer at Tesco’s, (their property) and takes the compressor back to his workshop to strip and repair before returning to refit the repaired unit. Are you saying this is stealing Silas because that is what your comments suggest does it not?
24/06/2013 at 19:38
Silas Brown
The Tesco’s repair man is irrelevant, again.
The visitor to Tesco’s who leaves with some bacon he hasn’t told Tesco’s about is what this is about. Why did he do it?
24/06/2013 at 19:57
Luna
No, you miss the point again. You say categorically in your comment
“taking finds home without the permission of the owner is stealing”. Ignore the word ‘Finds’ and use the word ‘something’. We can still use the word finds if you like but ‘something’ is less emotive but serves the same purpose. Stealing IS NOT taking something from someone without their permission, it is defined by the intent. You keep wanting to refer back to Tesco’s for some reason but just to cover that for you, if someone takes good for sale without paying for them then the intent is not to take them home to look at them and then return them so in this case the law is a lot clearer as to the intent. If you want the goods, you can take them home by paying for them- simple. So if you don’t pay for them, the intent is to steal
Let us go to the theft act 1968 and see what that says;
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/1
(1)A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly.
(2)It is immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain, or is made for the thief’s own benefit.
Point one makes it clear yet again that theft is determined by the intent behind the action. I might find you bicycle dumped in an alleyway by a thief who had no intention of returning it to you. I take your bicycle home to keep it safe until I find you, it’s rightful owner. I have not committed theft of your bicycle even though i am in possession of it without your permission because my intent is to return it to its owner.
I make these points as the internet is irritatingly littered with misinformation that then propagates itself so that readers take as fact the misinformation that they read. In this Case Silas, you make a bold and underlined statement that is simply not true, as you can see by the theft act and the examples I give you.
If you amend your comments to “taking the owners finds home without the intention of returning them is stealing” then it is legally correct.
Please, for the sake of journalistic integrity, amend your wording please.
24/06/2013 at 21:00
Silas Brown
” You say categorically in your comment
“taking finds home without the permission of the owner is stealing”. Ignore the word ‘Finds’ and use the word ‘something’.”
No thanks. I’ll stick to “finds” as that’s what I wrote and that’s what I meant.
“Please, for the sake of journalistic integrity, amend your wording please.”
Methinks it’s not journalism you’re keen to defend. Same old story.
24/06/2013 at 21:03
heritageaction
It is indeed.
25/06/2013 at 07:22
Tam3
“I make these points as the internet is irritatingly littered with misinformation”
…. says a man who is claiming detectorists who take finds home without permission just intend to look at them and return them!
25/06/2013 at 11:01
Paul Barford
Well all I can say is is “Luna” comes to repair the xerox in my office, there is no way he’s walking out with the bits without showing us exactly what he’s taking and why, and signing a receipt.
If – for whatever reason – he disappears with it or loses it, we’ll have documentation with which to make a complaint to his company and get a replacement from them.
Anything else is unprofessional cowboyism and if he tries to do a job without proper documentation of what he has done and following procedure, his company would not be asked back but we’d look for somebody more professional.
25/06/2013 at 11:05
Luna
It’s a shame to see that you want to turn this discussion re the correct legal definition of ‘Stealing’ into the defense of metal detecting, which it obviousely is not. It is a discussion of an important point of legality that is not confined to just this topic but every aspect of our lives. I note that instead of admitting that your statement is incorrect as I have evidentially proved (and you do not challenge therefore I take it that you are in agreement) you wish to engage in tittle tattle as a form of sidestepping.
25/06/2013 at 11:14
Paul Barford
“I want to do the right thing and tell him but dont know how to exactly, the way i see it ive got 3 choices […]
2 suggest he buys it from me and give me half
Eh? So, considering there is no contract, whose coin is it?
Why not fourth option, “give valuable coin back to landowner (whose property it is) and let him do what he thinks best wi’ it”? In fact, as I am sure HA are saying, it is the ONLY option.
25/06/2013 at 11:30
heritageaction
Luna, time to drop it please. Not telling Tescos which engineering bits you’ve taken home is unprofessional cowboyism, not telling them about bacon you take home is stealing and not telling Farmer Brown about the coin you found on his field is stealing as well.
How often do you suppose the latter two groups ACTUALLY bring the stuff back? We all know it’s nearly never else they wouldn’t have taken it away without permission in the first place.
Finis.
25/06/2013 at 11:34
heritageaction
“In fact, as I am sure HA are saying, it is the ONLY option.”
Well there is one more of course. He could steal it.
25/06/2013 at 11:39
Luna
Paul, you raise an interesting point re the ownership of the coin. Without doubt, the owner of the coin is the landowner but as you can see by my comments and the supporting links, by taking something that legally belongs to the owner is not stealing UNLESS there is intent not to return it – a very interesting point in law.
As you say HA, the fourth option is for the person to steal it (eg, have no intent to return it)
25/06/2013 at 13:48
Paul Barford
Theft Act Art. 6(1): “.(1)A person appropriating property belonging to another without meaning the other permanently to lose the thing itself is nevertheless to be regarded as having the intention of permanently depriving the other of it if his intention is to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights; and a borrowing or lending of it may amount to so treating it if, but only if, the borrowing or lending is for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal“.
Like I suppose taking it to another bloke to get it valued, cleaning it, putting it on a mantelpiece, showing it off at work/club, writing about “my find” on a forum etc etc.
25/06/2013 at 18:05
Luna
This is a fascinating discussion and raises as many new questions as it provides answers and Paul, you have thankfully provided further grist to the mill.
“only if, the borrowing or lending is for a period”
Hmm, what is the definition of a period? No legal definition so must be taken on its own merits appropriate to the situation?
“and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal“.
So this raises an interesting point regarding the PAS. Person A finds an artefact on someones property and unbeknown to the landowner takes it away to show to his PAS who then keep hold of it for a period as part of their recording process (i’m sure this happens a lot). Whilst It is not so broad-brush simple to say that someone taking an object is automatically stealing, as part of the PAS recording process, if it takes a ‘period’ then it could be classed as theft if the landowner has not given expressed permission to do so. Are the PAS now guilty of aiding and abetting a crime?? Should the PAS be saying “show me a signed document from the landowner to allow you to pass to me his/her object for recording because without it, I am aiding and abetting you in a crime”
Can you imagine the PAS saying “No document, no leaving it here with us”
This does raise all sorts of issues for the PAS doesn’t it?
25/06/2013 at 18:21
Tam3
I’m finding it hard to believe the sort of scruff that takes things home without mentioning it to the owner is going to take it to PAS for recording!
25/06/2013 at 18:36
Nigel S
I think they probably do, very often, as PAS certainly operates a don’t ask don’t tell policy – and anyway, if the “location” is falsified who is to know? PAS DOES have some serious ethical questions to answer but it entirely ignores them.
25/06/2013 at 19:04
Luna
Tam, i’m sure that many people do take things home without telling the landowner but then record them with PAS and the reason I say this is that the landowner is not going to be around all the time to be shown the finds afterwards and I can’t see a detectorist putting them back in the ground again. I’m not holding metal detectors up to be beacons of honesty and best practise, just pointing out that there will be a percentage that will do this.
There is a serious ethical issue of the PAS involvement in all of this and the fact they don’t ask for ANY details of who the owner of the object is makes for an alarming scenario doesn’t it? Even in a case where the knowledge is recorded for the cultural benefit of the population, the actual owner of the object may be blissfully unaware of the knowledge, let alone any financial gain from the onward sale of his or her property.
Put that one to Roger Bland and see how he answers it.
On a lighter side, reading the theft act has made me aware that it is not theft to pick mushrooms & fruit from someone elses land!
So at what point does it become theft if person A finds objects, takes them to be recorded with his PAS without the landowner knowing and then
25/06/2013 at 19:09
Paul Barford
“Luna” writes:“only if, the borrowing or lending is for a period”
Hmm, what is the definition of a period? No legal definition so must be taken on its own merits appropriate to the situation”
He/she really does seem determined to split hairs. Has he/she ever heard of “caught red handed”? So two masked blokes run out of a bank with a bag of “borrowed” money (or a holiday- maker’s home or hotel room) straight into the arms of the waiting police, and “Luna” thinks the police are going to have to let them go because “the period” has not passed? The same with a “borrowed” car, two youths are found driving up the M1 the day after its “unauthorised borrowing’ was reported? Does “Luna” seriously believe that the police are going to let the kids go because they swear they “were going to give it back tomorrow”? If the police came to Bazzer Thugwit’s home and found stuff he’d taken the day before from Farmer Silas’ Brown’s fields and barns without asking, does “Luna” think they’ll let him go for the same reason?
Somehow I think “Luna’s” interpretation of the Theft Act is not the one the bank, car owner or holiday-maker would support.
As for “Luna”s attempted anti-PAS provocation (“if it takes a ‘period’ then it could be classed as theft if the landowner has not given expressed permission to do so”), I’ll draw his/her attention to what the Code of Practice says .
“After you have been metal-detecting Reporting any finds to the relevant landowner/occupier; and ( with the agreement of the landowner/occupier ) to the Portable Antiquities Scheme, so the information can pass into the local Historic Environment Record”.
25/06/2013 at 20:15
Nigel S
“Tam, i’m sure that many people do take things home without telling the landowner but then record them with PAS”.
I agree, because a PAS identification and reference number aids marketing so it’s bound to happen sometimes – and of course common sense suggests that in many cases the find location would be falsified – just in case the farmer found out what was happening to his property.
So the more you look, the more murky is the probable reality behind the initial taking home without permission.
“the reason I say this is that the landowner is not going to be around all the time to be shown the finds afterwards”.
Well, a decent honest person would make darn sure he was going to be there at the end of the day.
This is Silas’s whole point. Behaviour that is seen as unacceptable in the rest of society has come to be almost accepted as normal when detectorists do it – as you are demonstrating. It isn’t!
27/06/2013 at 09:43
Luna
The more I look at the theft act the more I think the PAS are operating in a very murky world.
Handling stolen goods.(1)A person handles stolen goods if (otherwise than in the course of the stealing) knowing or believing them to be stolen goods he dishonestly receives the goods, or dishonestly undertakes or assists in their retention, removal, disposal or realisation by or for the benefit of another person, or if he arranges to do so.
“assists in their realisation” as in realising a market value by giving credence to and even in cases a false provenance to improve the sale value of an item in eBay or somewhere else?
It is unbelievable that the PAS will not ask one single documented question so simple as “do you legally have a right to bring this object to us for recording?”. This is such a basic concept of fairness and decency.
27/06/2013 at 14:18
Nigel S
“It is unbelievable that the PAS will not ask one single documented question so simple as “do you legally have a right to bring this object to us for recording?”.
They may do, but the answer will be “yes”, won’t it – for who is to know where it really came from except the detectorist? So yes of course PAS unwittingly handles stolen goods for if the answer is no then it is easy to falsify where it came from so that no checks can be made.
The only “rule” about this is in a voluntary code that is …. well, voluntary. Then there’s EBay. You can say what you like about where and how you found it and there’s no way it can be checked.
So yes, a murky world, and woe betide anyone that says it should be legally regulated.
27/06/2013 at 15:03
Paul Barford
Since the PAS is supposed to be all about outreaching to the public, I want to know why every farmer that has given permission to a detectorist to take his (the farmer’s) finds along to the PAS does not get information direct from the PAS to the owner what the object is, and under what number his property is recorded. This could most cost-efficiently be done if the farmer supplies an email on the permission letter that the detectorist receives, and presumably shows the PAS.
27/06/2013 at 17:13
Sidewinder
PAS = Pilfered Antiquities Scheme
27/06/2013 at 21:26
Pat
Wigwam – we’ve deleted your post, this site is about you not for you. However, we’re publishing a bit of it so people get an idea of what some artefact hunters are like:
“Iav got stuff going through the treasure act and the wankers have had over 3 years the disclaimed it 2 years ago and cant get my hands on it. So i wont be reporting anything ever again.”
28/06/2013 at 14:36
Mikki
Wigwam thanks for vindicating all my opinions 100%