You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Heritage Crime’ category.
We recently contrasted the big punishments given to people who steal lead from church roofs with the the leniency shown to people who plough out barrows, motorcycle on hillforts, nighthawk on scheduled sites and damage standing stones. But now in a “landmark ruling“, two men who metal detected on a protected site have been given ASBOs (the first time they’ve been used to tackle archaeological crime) as well as one year suspended custodial sentences, community service, curfews, compensation for damage and confiscation of equipment. So a heartening step towards consistency.
But there’s a long way to go. Mike Harlow (EH’s Legal Director) quite rightly said “The history they are stealing belongs to all of us …. Once the artefacts are removed from the ground and sold the valuable knowledge they contain is lost for ever”. But you’d be mistaken to think that meant these two had been convicted of knowledge theft. There’s no such crime, which is why the wider reality beyond nighthawking is grim: 97% of archaeological sites are not scheduled – so if those two gents had legally removed identical objects from any of those and not reported them (as thousands freely admit they do) the self same knowledge would be lost forever and there’d be zero punishment. Hence, although Britain’s approach to heritage crime is improving (and four massive cheers for all the agencies – the police, EH, CPS and the BM – that are visibly bringing this about) our country’s approach to heritage loss remains as illogical and indefensible as ever…..
Who can deny that the only proper approach (which is recognised and enacted abroad) is that no metal detecting whatsoever ought to be taking place without the law imposing what amounts to an antisocial behaviour order on those who do it. (Not a “voluntary” ASBO though. That would be silly, whoever heard of one of those working?!) Such a thing isn’t complicated or unfair – and every time the authorities condemn nighthawks because “The history they are stealing belongs to all of us” they are inadvertently agreeing.
PS…… and no longer said but seen! Yesterday, Simon Thurley, Chef Exec of EH, called for greater consistency by the Courts, which is our first point, with particular reference to Priddy (bravo! about time EH stopped saying they are “pleased” about that) but he also said, about nighthawks: that some of them “even trawled English Heritage’s own databases of protected sites looking for places likely to contain rich pickings….” Yes Dr Thurley, but it’s not just the courts that lack consistency for it’s not just nighthawks that do that and don’t report their finds is it? In fact nighthawks are a tiny, tiny proportion of those that do that so if you find such a thing so scandalous why not make it clear how widely it happens legally and how much you abhor it? You opine that “we’ve got perfectly good laws”. Hardly. On this particular issue the British law is a complete ass and it wouldn’t half help if you said so!
_____________________________________________________________
More Heritage Action views on metal detecting and artefact collecting
_____________________________________________________________
Its good to hear that the police have just had what is described as their “biggest success in the fight against British heritage crime.” Six men from Lincoln who stole lead from church roofs across three counties have been deal with very severely: Vidas Andruska was jailed for seven years, Andrius Cereska, Tadas Andruska and Andrius Kvedavas were jailed for four years each and Nerijus Razmas was jailed for 22 months. It’s a fair bet that none of those gents will ever go on a church roof again, nor will their friends!
And yet…. in the event that you get caught ploughing out a barrow, motorcycling on a hillfort, nighthawking on a scheduled site or damaging a standing stone, you can confidently anticipate a very modest fine or costs, a telling off and a conditional discharge.
So why the difference? Are church roofs more precious than those things? Who knows, but the inconsistency is even more striking when you reflect on a remark by the judge at Lincoln that he had borne in mind that repairing church roofs imposes a heavy financial burden on local communities. In contrast, if you plough out a barrow, motorcycle on a hill fort, nighthawk on a scheduled site or smash a standing stone there’s no financial burden whatsoever – because the damage can never be repaired!
Smashed stone at Twelve Apostles Circle: no repair costs incurred.
Here is a letter we’ve sent to Mr Penny. You never know, it might be worth it.
_______________________________________
Dear Mr Penny,
According to the police and English Heritage it is important that proper consideration is given to the impact of a crime on a heritage asset. We’d like to explain why we think that hasn’t happened at Priddy (and to propose a solution):
1. Your financial circumstances suggest a £48,000 penalty is relatively inconsequential.
2. It also looks lenient relative to previous heritage crimes, few or none of which had such a catastrophic impact.
3. Despite the value of your land possibly having been enhanced by what you did no confiscation order was applied.
4. Although not precisely equivalent, it looks anomalous that had you been convicted of metal detecting on the henge your equipment would have been confiscated whereas you still retain your bulldozer.
and 5:
As you know (as it was your barrister that proposed it) restorative justice formed the backbone of the penalty. Trouble is, that’s supposed to comprise “restitution or reparative measures” whereas if you bulldoze something away it is absolutely gone so there can be neither restitution, restoration, reparation nor justice.
Worse, we feel that by offering to pay for rebuilding and then keeping that offer open with respect to the less costly plan to merely carry out a research project you established very low parameters to the amount of restorative justice you have been subject to. (An investigation costing only £38,000 will be very limited in both scope and the amount of knowledge gathered – archaeological investigations typically involve hundreds of thousands of pounds!).
Hence we feel you have got away rather lightly for the heritage crime of the century and that morally at least you still owe a significant measure of restitution to the community. We also feel there will be an on-going negative impact: the court has effectively put a very low price on top-of-the-scale heritage assets and now potential developers can do their sums and perhaps calculate it is worthwhile not playing by the rules. A much higher penalty would have been good for heritage.
May we therefore request that for the sake of your reputation, the feelings of those who feel justice is yet to be done and the good of prehistoric heritage in general that you now consider making a series of significant ex gratia donations to some of the many worthy conservation projects currently in need of support?
Yours faithfully,
Heritage Action
The penalty for bulldozing part of the Priddy Henges will soon be known. Bearing in mind some recent lesser cases (12 months in jail for stealing lead from a church roof and a £2,600 fine for installing uPVC windows in a listed farmhouse) Mr Penny might expect very bad news. On the other hand, imprisoning octogenarians for long periods is hardly appropriate, so it may well be that he’ll get what many will say is a light sentence and one that is insufficient deterrent to others.
But is focussing on the punishment missing the point? Isn’t reminding people there’s a punishment the real priority? In front of the King Stone at the Rollrights there’s a very old fashioned sign telling people that any person injuring or damaging it “will be liable to prosecution according to law”.
There’s no information board at the henge that Mr Penny damaged, they’re pretty expensive. But who knows, if there had been a simple, inexpensive warning notice, similar to the one at the King Stone, near the gate through which the bulldozer was driven, maybe the damage wouldn’t have happened.
ARCH (Alliance to Reduce Crime Against Heritage) is holding three briefing sessions this autumn for interested parties to learn more about the Heritage Crime Programme and Alliance to Reduce Crime against Heritage. The objectives of these sessions are as follows:
To explain the Memorandum of Understanding on Heritage Crime for Local Authorities and Community Safety Partnerships.
To further understanding of what constitute a heritage crime and the impact of crime and anti-social behaviour on the historic environment.
To help identify, through the sharing of best practice, effective partnership interventions, enforcement options and opportunities for multiagency working and community involvement.
Dates and locations of sessions
- 13 September – Cambridge
- 27 September – Sheffield
- 11 October – London
If you work in or are involved with the heritage sector and would like to attend, please visit the helm website to book a place. Heritage Action will hopefully be attending at least one of these sessions as part of our ongoing commitment to the work ARCH is doing.
We live in a world of Apps these days. There are apps to take photos, to issue diary reminders, to keep a journal, to play games, to socialise online with others, whatever you can think of, as the saying goes: There’s an app for that!
But there is one app that is not available yet that we’d dearly like to see. A Heritage Crime App – A crowd-sourced app for centrally compiling statistics on heritage crime.
There is something that comes very close, and that’s an app developed by Abavus/iTouchVision for reporting problems to your local council, called aptly ‘UK – My Council Services‘. It’s available free for all the major platforms; iOS, Android, Blackberry, Windows Phone and web, and allows a user (after registering) to send a report to their local council (selectable) about things such as abandoned cars, noise nuisance, litter, potholes in roads etc – there’s a long list of report types available and reports can include photos taken ‘on the scene’. Compiled reports are then forwarded on to the relevant Council.
Now imagine a similar app ‘My Heritage‘ that would allow a user out on a site visit to capture details of a heritage crime: graffiti, broken windows, metal theft, tractor or 4WD ruts on/near a scheduled monument, damaged information boards or other vandalism. Photographic evidence could be taken, and geotagged for inclusion in the reports which would then be automatically forwarded to the relevant authorities; National Trust, English Heritage, CADW, the Police, ARCH, County Archaeologists (if there are any left!) Instant statistics would be available to organisations to quantify hotspots for crime by type, location etc. which could prove invaluable in the efforts to reduce such crime.
An alternate version of such an app could also prove very useful for crowdsourced surveys such as this recent example on the Isles of Scilly, checking for coastal erosion.
So how about it, any app developers out there fancy following up on this one? Are any of the large organisations already investigating going down this path that we haven’t heard about yet? What heritage related app would you like to see available, or better yet, which apps do you already use, and why?
