Treasure Trove

De Bellem

Is that relevant if you find something in Ireland like it does in England

Gee Bag

De Bellem wrote: »

Is that relevant if you find something in Ireland like it does in England

No. In Ireland the law on treasure trove was revoked by the National Monuments Act 1930.

De Bellem

So to the layman if one accidently comes across something of interest is there any incentive to report the find.

dr gonzo

De Bellem wrote: »

So to the layman if one accidently comes across something of interest is there any incentive to report the find.

Irish law on archaeology doesnt use incentives, it is stick, not carrot. Under the letter of the law a person who does not report an archaeological find within 3 days is subject to prosecution, which can include a prison sentence.

You cant sell an artefact so the question is do you want to run the risk of being prosecuted just to have something nice on your mantelpiece?

robp

De Bellem wrote: »

So to the layman if one accidently comes across something of interest is there any incentive to report the find.

Its not written in the law but the national museum may give rewards for particularly significant finds. That occurs regularly. That been said if the law is broken when finding the object (eg digging for an object or being slow to report it) don't be surprised if you face charges.

mocmo

As far as I know The National Museum (NMI) give rewards for all finds, and also to people who bring in things like family heirlooms with significant historical interest (for example, something relating to the War of Independence). I recall a piece (not sure if a radio interview or article by a NMI staff member) explaining the process and also pointing out that the NMI are careful to investigate the provenance/findspot of objects, and if they think something has been discovered through illegal activity they will take appropriate action. Financial rewards are given to encourage people to report and bring in finds but the NMI are careful about it and rightly so.

slowburner

Section f in the notes on the Report of Discovery of Archaeological Object(s):

f.
Rewards, at the discretion of the State, may be made to persons involved with the legitimate discovery or acquisition of archaeological objects.
The amounts which may be paid will take into account (amongst other things) the nature of the object, its importance to the National Collections,
the circumstances of discovery and the conduct of persons involved with the discovery and acquisition.

Quorom

Gee Bag wrote: »

No. In Ireland the law on treasure trove was revoked by the National Monuments Act 1930.

It most certainly did not, look at section 2 of the Act. In fact, the famous Webb v Ireland Supreme Court case ( Derrynaflan chalice ) ruled that the royal prerogative of treasure trove became extinct when the Irish Free State was formed, so there is no longer the royal prerogative of treasure trove. However, by the fact of the National Monuments Act 1930 description of what an archaeological item was, included the term treasure trove ( a royal prerogative ) in it's description, means that the royal prerogative of treasure trove, did in fact exist, as it was referred to in a statutory Act of the Oireachtas. It appears the Supreme Court tried to twist the law to deny the Webbs the Derrynaflan hoard, worth millions even at that time. The 1994 National Monuments Act amended its description of what an archaeological object is and left out the last part of the paragraph which alluded to the term treasure trove. Convenient.

Dr Strange

Actually, treasure trove is still guided by the Coroner's Act in the first instance. It is not much used but by law the Coroner has first authority over treasure trove be they human remains or not.

Link: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1962/act/9/section/49/enacted/en/html

Similar act still working in the UK Coroner's Act for Northern Ireland as well:

http://www.thejournal.ie/coroners-court-treasure-inquest-find-antrim-1669103-Sep2014/

Quorom

Exactly my point, it is still referred to in various statutes, treasure trove is a royal prerogative, therefore the Supreme Court ruling in Webb v Ireland which stated that the royal prerogative was made extinct by the founding of the Irish Free State, is certainly open to challenge. ( indeed to this date scholars of Irish Law debate this matter ). But where do we go to in Irish Law to appeal or overturn this decision. There is a res judicata on the matter from the Supreme Court. Maybe, like the Supreme Court, a challenger to the judgment, can look to the Irish Constitution as well, in particular to Article 43.


Property rights

The Constitution declares that the State will vindicate the property rights of every cititizen. This means that you have a right to own, transfer and inherit property. You also have the right to bequeath property upon your death. The State guarantees to pass no law to abolish these rights.

Article 43 acknowledges that these rights ought to be regulated by the principles of social justice. This means that the State may pass laws limiting your right to private propety in the interests of the common good. If the state passes a law that restricts your property rights, it may be required to compensate you for this restriction. ( Webb were not, in my opinion, adequately compensated by the State )



It appears on the face of it that the Irish State circled the wagons so as to speak, with the Supreme Court decision in Webb so as to deny the Webbs a fair share of the Derrynaflan hoard which, without them, would most likely still be buried in the ground.

Quorom

In fact as a result of the Webb case section 2(1) of the National Monuments (Amendment) Act 1994 was created which provides:

"Without prejudice to any other rights howsoever arising in relation to any archaeological object found before the coming into operation of this section, there shall stand vested in the state ownership of an archaeological object found in the State after coming into operation of this section where such an object has no known owner when it was found."

Therefore prior to 1994 a person who found an object on or below the ground, did in fact have some right in relation to the finding of the object. The reason why I state this is because there is no other reason for this amendment to the National Monuments Act, save to put on a statutory footing that all archaeological objects found after the coming into operation of this Act are the property of the State. But why would the State amend the standing legislation if they truly believed they have the Constitutional right of de facto ownership of all archaeological times found and that this right was not open to challenge ?

Arsemageddon

Quorom wrote: »

It most certainly did not, look at section 2 of the Act. In fact, the famous Webb v Ireland Supreme Court case ( Derrynaflan chalice ) ruled that the royal prerogative of treasure trove became extinct when the Irish Free State was formed, so there is no longer the royal prerogative of treasure trove. However, by the fact of the National Monuments Act 1930 description of what an archaeological item was, included the term treasure trove ( a royal prerogative ) in it's description, means that the royal prerogative of treasure trove, did in fact exist, as it was referred to in a statutory Act of the Oireachtas. It appears the Supreme Court tried to twist the law to deny the Webbs the Derrynaflan hoard, worth millions even at that time. The 1994 National Monuments Act amended its description of what an archaeological object is and left out the last part of the paragraph which alluded to the term treasure trove. Convenient.

The reference to Treasure Trove in Section 2 of the 1930 Act simply means that the state does not have the authority to forcibly acquire archaeological objects which were in private ownership prior to the foundation of the Irish Free State. Badly written, but that's what it means in practice.

Quorom wrote: »

Exactly my point, it is still referred to in various statutes, treasure trove is a royal prerogative, therefore the Supreme Court ruling in Webb v Ireland which stated that the royal prerogative was made extinct by the founding of the Irish Free State, is certainly open to challenge. ( indeed to this date scholars of Irish Law debate this matter ). But where do we go to in Irish Law to appeal or overturn this decision. There is a res judicata on the matter from the Supreme Court. Maybe, like the Supreme Court, a challenger to the judgment, can look to the Irish Constitution as well, in particular to Article 43.


Property rights

The Constitution declares that the State will vindicate the property rights of every cititizen. This means that you have a right to own, transfer and inherit property. You also have the right to bequeath property upon your death. The State guarantees to pass no law to abolish these rights.

Article 43 acknowledges that these rights ought to be regulated by the principles of social justice. This means that the State may pass laws limiting your right to private propety in the interests of the common good. If the state passes a law that restricts your property rights, it may be required to compensate you for this restriction. ( Webb were not, in my opinion, adequately compensated by the State )


It appears on the face of it that the Irish State circled the wagons so as to speak, with the Supreme Court decision in Webb so as to deny the Webbs a fair share of the Derrynaflan hoard which, without them, would most likely still be buried in the ground.

You have some knowledge of the law, therefore you are probably well aware that the property rights enshrined in Article 43.1 are not absolute. They are subject to Article 43.2 which gives the state the right to act in the common good.

2. 1° The State recognises, however, that the exercise of the rights mentioned in the foregoing provisions of this Article ought, in civil society, to be regulated by the principles of social justice.
2° The State, accordingly, may as occasion requires delimit by law the exercise of the said rights with a view to reconciling their exercise with the exigencies of the common good.

It's also worth noting that the decision in Webb v Ireland was based on Articles 5 and 10.

Quorom wrote: »

In fact as a result of the Webb case section 2(1) of the National Monuments (Amendment) Act 1994 was created which provides:

"Without prejudice to any other rights howsoever arising in relation to any archaeological object found before the coming into operation of this section, there shall stand vested in the state ownership of an archaeological object found in the State after coming into operation of this section where such an object has no known owner when it was found."

Therefore prior to 1994 a person who found an object on or below the ground, did in fact have some right in relation to the finding of the object. The reason why I state this is because there is no other reason for this amendment to the National Monuments Act, save to put on a statutory footing that all archaeological objects found after the coming into operation of this Act are the property of the State. But why would the State amend the standing legislation if they truly believed they have the Constitutional right of de facto ownership of all archaeological times found and that this right was not open to challenge ?

The 1994 act clarifies the definition of an archaeological object because the 1930 Act was badly worded. The 1994 definition also includes a wider definition of what constitutes an archaeological object.

Like it or not, the Supreme Court decided in Webb V Ireland that Treasure Trove does not exist in Ireland. Personally, I'd give more weight to the opinion of supreme court judges than some fella on the internet.

Quorom

Arsemaggodon,

Thank you very much for your vote of confidence in me, the guru of Irish Law at the time, Professor Kelly, disagreed vehemently with the Supreme Court decision in relation the extinction of royal prerogative since the foundation of the Irish Free State. I have stated before in a previous post, that this matter is still a topic of intense discussion between current and past Supreme Court Judges. However, at the time, public opinion was against the Webb's, the Judicary circled the wagons and came up with, what I believe to be a spurious argument of Articles 5 and 10 of the Constitution ( which by the way two Judges dissented in relation to Justice C J Finlay's reasoning in relation to Article 10 of the Constitution.) I must add that no article of the constitution of 1922 or indeed the constitution of the Irish Republic in 1937 supersede any another article drafted within the said constitutions. Again Article 43 of the 1937 Constitution seems, on the face of it, to be at odds with Justice Finlay's determination.

I reiterate, why make a statutory amendment as per Section 2(1) of the National Monument ( Amendment ) Act 2004, if the Irish State truly believed that they had a de facto constitutional right to all archaeological items and treasure trove found on or in land by the landowners.

Arsemageddon

Quorom wrote: »

Arsemaggodon,
Thank you very much for your vote of confidence in me, the guru of Irish Law at the time, Professor Kelly, disagreed vehemently with the Supreme Court decision in relation the extinction of royal prerogative since the foundation of the Irish Free State. I have stated before in a previous post, that this matter is still a topic of intense discussion between current and past Supreme Court Judges. However, at the time, public opinion was against the Webb's, the Judicary circled the wagons and came up with, what I believe to be a spurious argument of Articles 5 and 10 of the Constitution ( which by the way two Judges dissented in relation to Justice C J Finlay's reasoning in relation to Article 10 of the Constitution.) I must add that no article of the constitution of 1922 or indeed the constitution of the Irish Republic in 1937 supersede any another article drafted within the said constitutions.

Your pointing out that legal eagles have different opinions on the law. Eh, so what? Go into any court and you'll find lawyers arguing about how the law should be interpreted. The Supreme Court judgement in Webb is messy because the 1930 Act is poorly worded. However, the intention of the 1930 Act is quite clear. Had the Supreme Court decided that treasure trove still existed in Ireland it would have given a green light to every gobshyte with a shovel and no scruples to go looting archaeological sites for their own enrichment. The Supreme Courts might no be satisfying to the legal purist, but it helped protect the nation's collective heritage for the Irish people.

Again Article 43 of the 1937 Constitution seems, on the face of it, to be at odds with Justice Finlay's determination.

Firstly, you have again ignored the second part of article 43, you know, the bit about the right to private property not being absolute when it is contrary to the common good.

Secondly, you have pointed out that no article of the constitution trumps another. Therefore, article 43 does not trump Article 5 or 10.

I reiterate, why make a statutory amendment as per Section 2(1) of the
National Monument ( Amendment ) Act 2004, if the Irish State truly believed that they had a de facto constitutional right to all archaeological items and treasure trove found on or in land by the landowners.

As I stated in a previous post the definition of an archaeological object was changed both to provide clarity to the National Monuments Acts and to update the definition in light of advances in archaeology (presuming you mean the 1994 act).

By the by if your looking for a debate about the legal issues around Webb V Ireland and Treasure Trove then maybe you might be better posting in the legal discussion forum.

Quorom

Private Property and the Irish Consitution of 1937

Article 43

1. 1° The State acknowledges that man, in virtue of his rational being, has the natural right, antecedent to positive law, to the private ownership of external goods.
2° The State accordingly guarantees to pass no law attempting to abolish the right of private ownership or the general right to transfer, bequeath, and inherit property.
2. 1° The State recognises, however, that the exercise of the rights mentioned in the foregoing provisions of this Article ought, in civil society, to be regulated by the principles of social justice.
2° The State, accordingly, may as occasion requires delimit by law the exercise of the said rights with a view to reconciling their exercise with the exigencies of the common good.

It is Article 43(1) and (2) that concerns me, also in the Webb judgment Justice Finlay makes reference to the 1922 constitution, with regard to dismissing the Webb's claim to the hoard. However there is a corollary to Finlay's argument, article 11 of the 1922 constitution states:

All the lands and waters, mines and minerals, within the territory of the Irish Free State (Saorstát Eireann) hitherto vested in the State, or any department thereof, or held for the public use or benefit, and also all the natural resources of the same territory (including the air and all forms of potential energy), and also all royalties and franchises within that territory shall, from and after the date of the coming into operation of this Constitution, belong to the Irish Free State (Saorstát Eireann), subject to any trusts, grants, leases or concessions then existing in respect thereof, or any valid private interest therein, and shall be controlled and administered by the Oireachtas, in accordance with such regulations and provisions as shall be from time to time approved by legislation, but the same shall not, nor shall any part thereof, be alienated, but may in the public interest be from time to time granted by way of lease or licence to be worked or enjoyed under the authority and subject to the control of the Oireachtas: Provided that no such lease or licence may be made for a term exceeding ninety-nine years, beginning from the date thereof, and no such lease or licence may be renewable by the terms thereof.

The valid private interest part of this clause is open to the legal interpretation as being the landowners equitable right to property found in or on his land.

Your argument in relation to Article 43 not trumping article 5 or 10, the vice versa of this is also true.

slowburner

The ultimate intent of this pseudo-discussion is patently obvious.
It held a mild degree of archaeological interest for a moment or two, but that has long since evaporated.


Do not start a thread on Treasure Trove laws directly, or in some other guise.