Ludlow Woman Admits Failing To Report Treasure: First Case Of Its Kind In The Country

A South Shropshire woman has been sentenced by magistrates after admitting to finding and failing to report Treasure - the first conviction of its kind in the country.

The woman, who is in her 20s and from Ludlow, failed to notify the coroner after discovering a rare piedfort - a silver, coin-like artefact dating from the 1300s.

She took the artefact to Ludlow Museum in January 2009 for identification and recording with the Portable Antiquities Scheme, originally saying she had found the item in her garden.

Peter Reavill (Finds Liaison Officer for Herefordshire & Shropshire) examined the find, and once it had been identified by experts at Birmingham Museum & Art Gallery and the British Museum, correctly informed the woman that she had a legal obligation to report the find to the coroner under Section 8 of the Treasure Act 1996.

Despite repeated attempts to contact her by both the Finds Liaison Officer and the coroner, the woman failed to report the discovery. The Coroner for South Shropshire, Mr Anthony Sibcy, contacted the police in April 2009.

West Mercia Police conducted an investigation in conjunction with experts at the Portable Antiquities Scheme, the British Museum and the Metropolitan Police's specialist Art and Antiques Unit.

The woman was summonsed to appear at Ludlow Magistrates Court on 17 February and the case was adjourned until Thursday (24 February) when the woman pleaded guilty to the offence of finding an object believed to be Treasure and not reporting it.

She was ordered to hand over the piedfort, was given a conditional discharge and ordered to pay £25 court costs.

Dr Michael Lewis, Deputy Head, Department Portable Antiquities and Treasure at the British Museum, confirmed that the case was the first known of its kind in the country to have resulted in prosecution.

He said: "This is a landmark case and it sends a clear message to those who fail to report Treasure. It shows that the police and the coroners' service give Treasure and archaeological heritage law a high profile and will take proactive measures against those that disregard it.

"The woman in this case was informed that the item had been identified as potential Treasure and told on numerous occasions that her find needed to be reported to the coroner. Unfortunately, she failed to follow the advice given and did not report her find to the coroner within the statutory period of 14 days.

"However, we are delighted that the artefact, which has great historical significance, has now been handed over under the instruction of the magistrates.

"The hard work of West Mercia Police and in particular PC Beverley Fowden, who investigated this case, should be praised.

"It's important to stress that The Treasure Act 1996 has been extremely successful, giving local and national museums the opportunity to acquire important finds. In 2009, 782 finds were reported Treasure, compared with 201 in the first full year of the Act."

• The object in this case is a silver Piedfort of a Double Parisis of Charles IV of France (r. 1322-8). The exact function of these objects is unknown although it is clear they were not intended to function as coins, and therefore the object qualifies as potential Treasure under the Treasure Act 1996.
• Section 8 of the Treasure Act 1996 imposes a duty on a finder of potential Treasure to inform the coroner and where a finder fails to do so, the section creates an offence of failing to carry out that duty and a defence available in relation to that offence.          
• 8(1) states: A person who finds an object which he believes or has reasonable grounds for believing is treasure must notify the coroner for the district in which the object was found before the end of the notice period.

8(2) states: The notice period is fourteen days beginning with -

(a) the day after the find; or

(b) if later, the day on which the finder first believes or has reason to believe the object is treasure.

• Section 1 of the Treasure Act 1996 commences with a definition of the term "treasure" and Section 2 permits the definition to be extended (or reduced) by statutory instrument.

1(1) Treasure is:

(a) any object at least 300 years old when found which

(i) is not a coin but has metallic content of which at least 10 per cent by weight is precious metal;
(ii) when found, is one of at least two coins in the same find which are at least 300 years old at that time and have that percentage of precious metal; or
(iii) when found, is one of at least ten coins in the same find which are at least 300 years old at that time;

(b) any object at least 200 years old when found and which belongs to a class designated under section 2(1);
(c) any object which would have been 'treasure trove' if found before the commencement of this Act;
(d) any object which, when found, is part of the same find as -

(i) an object within paragraph (a), (b) or (c) found at the same time or earlier; or
(ii) an object found earlier which would be within paragraph (a) or (b) if it had been found at the same time

• Treasure finds are relatively rare, with 12 cases reported from Shropshire in 2007 (the figure given in the latest Treasure Annual Report). However, the reporting of Treasure in the county has increased by 420 per cent since the appointment of a Finds Liaison Officer for Hereford and Shropshire in 2003.
• Nationally, Treasure cases make up less than 0.1 per cent of all finds reported to the Portable Antiquities Scheme (http://www.finds.org.uk/); a scheme to record archaeological finds found by the public.
• Under the Treasure Act 1996, the finder and landowner share a reward, which represents the market value of the artefact and is derived by a panel of experts known as the Treasure Valuation Committee, appointed by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport.
• A similar piedfort to the one in the Ludlow case was discovered in West Clandon, Surrey, in 2007 and was purchased by the British Museum for £1,800.

Issued: Friday 26 February 2010