FEEDBACK ADJUSTMENT

Seminar leader: Gareth Spark

Word count: 1155

This scenario deals with whether Simone and Tanya have trespassed the property of Ursula; whether
the objects found during the walk amounted to a treasure and subjected the pair to report them to
the Coroners; and Ursula’s rights over the property and the items.

Firstly, It must be decided whether Simone and Tanya entering a fenced area, although gate was
missing, amounted to trespass of Ursula’s property. Ursula claims that these two are trespassers so
it must be established that she is owner of the land with possession over the land, for instance, since
it was fenced area there is a degree of control over the property to exclude others from using the
property. However, the absence of the closing gate could mean that Simone and Tanya assumed this
to be land for public use and Tanya and Simone had access to the land without any damage to the
gate this would amount to trespass.1 Additionally, the intention of Simone and Tanya entering is for
a ‘open-air recreation’ 2as they were just taking a walk.

During the walk, Simone and Tanya discover an Roman coin made from precious metals, which
could, possibly, be a treasure under S.1 of Treasure Act 1996. Although the item discovered is a
precious metal, which signifies gold or silver, 3 the coins need have been discovered in a group or
more than ten to qualify as a treasure. Therefore, Simone and Tanya are not required to report the
finding of the single coin within 14 days, however, if there were more than ten coins failing to report
would result in a criminal offence. 4 This, here, creates a conflict between the quantitative value of
items and its historical significance, where it appears that single coin with ‘precious metals’ are
undervalued as they are not in a group. This is reflective of the 700-year-old coin known as
‘’piedfort’’ was a treasure under s.1(1)(a) (i) but the coin was given to museum to value it, thus
rather than dismissing single coin as treasure 5, which could benefit Simone and Tanya for their own
personal interests, there should be requirement to submit it to museums or other archaeology
organisations.
In Parker v British Airways 6, it was decided that the finder of a chattel has no right unless the item
has been abandoned and taken into their care. However, Simone and Tanya have taken the coin as
trespassers, then their claim to the item would be weaker than Ursula’s, the owner of the land, but if
she fails to establish possession of the property then Simone and Tanya might have a stronger claim.
Here, Simone and Tanya could be labelled as trespassers as they were not granted permission to find
items on the land and their intention was to take a walk on the land.
1 Countryside and Rights of Way 2000 s.2(1)(a)
2 Ibid, s 2(1)
3 Treasure Act 1996 s. 3 (b)
4 Treasure Act 1996, s 1
5 Judith Bay, ‘The law on treasure from a land lawyer’s perspective’ [2013]
6 Parker v British ways [1982] 1 QB 1004
Whilst Simone and Tanya have a seat to eat their sandwiches, they discover a shield with a caved
inscription and a worn design. The inscription on the item signifies that the owner intended the
property to be returned, thus Simone and Tanya are obligated to ‘take reasonable steps to reunite
the true owner with his lost property’’ 7 but since this is an material of ancient descent it could be
difficult to trace the true owner. Ideally, Simone and Tanya would have to disclose to the owner that
the item has been found.

Additionally, the Simone and Tanya work together to take out a bag from the ground which contains
a helmet in the style of a military armour. Here, the fact that the helmet was merged in the soil does
not mean it was abandoned, thus Ursula could still have right over it and the pair putting effort to
pull up the bag also suggests that it was possibly buried beneath the ground. Therefore, the helmet
had become part of the land and if Ursula could show that she is possession of the land along with
the fact that it was found below the surface, she would have better claim to it than the pair,
regardless of whether she was aware of the presence of the helmet. 8
Another issue is whether the helmet is a treasure and whether Simone and Tanya are obliged to
report this. Although the finding of an old style armour is quite rare, it does not contain precious
metals nor was it found with other items of objects of treasure 9. The only way this could be kept in
the public realm is for museums to purchase this by raising adequate funds, 10 as was the case in
Crosby Garret helmet. Therefore, there is a scope for the Treasure 1996 act to extend the items
defined as treasures by giving more archaeological importance. This is highlighted by the Council for
British Archaeology to replace ‘treasure’ with archaeological artefacts to focus on wider aspect of
the item than only its monetary or quantitative value. 11 Nevertheless, like the case in the finding of
the single coin, the act of taking the helmet into their possession could be a trespass but if Simone
and Tanya found the helmet with other treasure under the 1996 act, then they will obliged to report
it.
It is later revealed that Ursula wants to keep the found items for ‘safe keeping’ suggesting that the
items do not belong to her. Indeed, she has a better claim over the objects if she demonstrates a an
intention to control the property. This, however, is not necessary over items that were attached to
the land, such as the helmet which was submerged in the land 12 as there is an ‘’implicit control over
the property’’13but manifest control over the coin, since it was on the land. Here, it creates an
ambiguity as to what constitutes to intention to control over the property 14 but since Ursula is owner
of a private land she might find it more convenient to intention control over the land than a owner
of a public property. Indeed, Ursula can argue that since the pair entered a fenced area she had
clearly intended to exclude others from the land, hence the Simone and Tanya might be trespassers
and have weaker claim over the objects.

To conclude, since Simone and Tanya have crossed a fenced property, this could imply the degree of
control Ursula intended to have over the property. This could be deemed as an act of trespass and

7 Ibid
8 Elwess v Briggs Gas company [1886] 33 ChD
9 Treasure Act 1996, s 1
10 Judith Bay, The Law on Treasure from a Land Lawyer’s Perspective, [2013]
11 Ibid
12 Waverley v Fletcher [1996] QB 334
13 Catharine MacMillan, ‘Finders Keepers, Losers Weepers – But Who are the Losers ?’ 58, The Modern Law
Review [1995]
14 Judith Bay, The Law on Treasure from a Land Lawyer’s Perspective, [2013]
the pair might not have a better claim to the materials found. Additionally, the single coin, despite
being a precious metal, as well as the helmet is not a treasure so the Simone and Tanya are not
obliged to report the find. However, since the Helmet was pulled from the soil, as a result, it is part
of the land so they are subjected to give it to Ursula irrespective of whether or not she was aware of
its existence.

Bibliography
Bay J, ‘The Law on Treasure from Land Lawyer’s Perspective (2013) < 1271642
(blackboardcdn.com)>accessed Nov 4 2022
Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, s 2(1)(a)
Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, s 1
Elwess v Briggs Gas Company [1886] 33 ChD
Parker v British Ways [1982] 1 QB 1004
Treasure Act 1996, s 3(b)
Treasure Act 1996, s 1
MacMillan C, ‘Finders keepers, Losers Weepers – But Who are the Losers ? (1995) <
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1995.tb01998.x> accessed Nov 4 2022