Alan from Coventry said, “Secondly, if it took place 14 years ago, she was only 9 years old.” Continuing he said, “What was the age of criminal responsibility at the time?” He knew.
“For juveniles under the age of 15, the prosecution would still have to prove that she knew that the act was seriously wrong.”
A Man Comes to Her Defense
One person named Alan from Coventry bravely offered a defense for Ms. Harding. He said, “I can’t understand how she could be found guilty.
If the find was in 1996, did it occur before or after the Treasure Act came into force?” We all know her find predated the law by many years.
“Can the prosecution prove the date of the find?”
These were good questions. But the museum would stop at nothing. From their view, historical relics belonged to the state and they belonged to the public. The museum makes such relics available to all.
Furthermore, the museum does not believe any individual has a right to a public good like a remnant of history.
A Bold Assessment
His final opinion found, “As the magistrates’ appalling ignorance of the law has given her a criminal record, I think she should appeal before a real judge.”
The man shared some valid points.
Where Is the Piedfort?
According to Ms. Harding, the piedfort had been misplaced. She held onto it for 14 years, but something happened to it sometime during the unfortunate turn of luck after taking it to the museum for an appraisal.
As far as anyone knew, it was, in fact, lost.