14 C O N T E X T 1 2 8 : M A R C H 2 0 1 3 and not to the question of the guilt of the accused.The HCIS explains the nature of the offence or anti-social behaviour, the impact on the heritage asset and the historic environment where it is situated, and may also include an explanation of the impact of the offence for the local community. Recent cases where an HCIS has been used include prosecutions for metal theft from Folkestone Grammar School (two offenders sentenced to nine and five months imprisonment); graffiti on a listed Folkestone viaduct (offender sentenced to 15 months in a young offenders institution); anti-social behaviour at Audley End House (one offender received a youth rehabilitation order and banning letters sent to the others involved); damage by graffiti to Clifford’sTower inYork (offender sentenced to four months imprisonment); the unauthorised demolition of an unlisted building in a conservation areas in Richmond-upon-Thames (offender sentenced to a £80,000 fine); and metal theft from St Luke’s Church, Farnworth (offenders sentenced to a 12-month community order; electronically monitored curfew for three months; 100 hours of unpaid work; and £400 in compensation). The statements seem to have succeeded in highlighting the seriousness of the offences. In the Clifford’sTower case the district judge remarked that the ‘worldwide significance of the historic site’ damaged by the graffiti meant that a custodial sentence was the only appropriate penalty. In the St Lukes, Farnworth case, the district judge stated that the ‘crimes against our heritage were appalling’. The Richmond-upon-Thames case is the highest fine imposed for a conservation area offence. English Heritage is encouraging the use of these statements as part of its heritage crime programme. Its guide to the use of HCISs, published in November 20123, explains when they should be used, who should provide them and what information they should contain. The English Heritage guidance makes it clear that a formal HCIS will not need to be drawn up in every case where an offence has affected a heritage asset, but it suggests that whenever a heritage offence has been committed it may be useful to consider the direct and indirect impacts at an early stage.This will enable any aggravating factors to be highlighted and may be useful where suspects are to be interviewed.The information may also be relevant to the decision to prosecute. A full HCIS need only be drawn up once criminal proceedings have been commenced against the offender. If the HCIS is to be given weight in the sentencing decision, the information must be supplied by a person with the necessary qualifications or professional expertise to explain the significance of the heritage asset affected by the offence and the nature of any direct or indirect harm caused, including impact on the local community. The statement will therefore usually be drawn up by heritage professionals such as a conservation officer, architectural historian or archaeologist. However, as a means of allowing the court to understand the impact for people in the vicinity, local experts and members of local archaeological or historical societies might also be asked to supply an HCIS. In some cases it may also be appropriate to ask the owner of the heritage asset which has been the subject of the offence or anti-social behaviour to supply a victim impact statement.4 If they are willing to do so, this should be encouraged. The heritage crime impact statement should include an assessment of all harm caused: both direct harm to the fabric or setting, and indirect harm. The English Heritage HCIS Guide suggests that a statement include: A description of the heritage asset and/or historic area that is affected by the crime, including any national and local designations. If it is a designated heritage asset, an explanation of that designation and what it means. The significance of the heritage asset or area in both national and local terms, where appropriate (whether designated or not). The impact of the crime on the heritage asset or historic area; an assessment of the loss/harm to the asset itself and whether this is reversible or irreversible, and the impact on the wider area. The cost of repair or reparation (for example the costs of removing graffiti, or the lost revenue caused by a reduction in visitor numbers where a heritage asset open to the public needs to be closed for repair). Information on the scale of heritage crime.This may include, for example, information from the English Heritage survey, police and other agencies, or insurance companies on the frequency with which heritage assets are subjected to crime and anti-social behaviour, or the number of occasions on which it has been necessary to remove graffiti, drugs litter or fly-tipped rubbish from sites in the area. Although the HCIS should be drawn up by an expert, it should be written in non-technical language which a layman will be able to understand, as very few magistrates are likely to have specialist architectural or historical knowledge. To assist those drawing up the statement the English Heritage Guide contains a series of useful templates for a number of heritage offences, and also a hypothetical example of a completed statement. Other examples of HCISs which may be of use to those wishing to draw up a statement can be found in Appendix 3 of the conference papers distributed at the launch of the Alliance to Reduce Crimes Against Heritage (ARCH) in 2011.5 This includes the statement drawn up by Andrew Richardson for the Folkestone viaduct prosecution mentioned earlier. In 1998, Bob Kindred wrote (Context 58, June): ‘In an ideal world, the management of the nation’s historic building stock should not have to rely on the criminal law, but it does. Prosecution (or the threat of it) remains a vital weapon in the armoury of the local authority. A properly brought but unsuccessful prosecution, or one that fails to impose an appropriate sanction, can seriously undermine good conservation and sends the wrong signals out to the local community’. The use of the HCIS may do much to ensure that appropriate sanctions are imposed, and the ‘right’ signals are sent out. Carolyn Shelbourn is a senior lecturer in the school of law at the University of Sheffield. References 1 www.english-heritage. org.uk/professional/ advice/advice-by-topic/ heritage-crime/ 2 Commissioned by English Heritage and conducted by Newcastle University, Loughborough University and the Council for British Archaeology in October/November 2011. Available at http://www. english-heritage.org. uk/content/importeddocs/p-t/researchpaper. pdf 3 English Heritage/ ARCH, Heritage Crime Impacts Statements (2012) available at www. english-heritage.org.uk/ publications/heritagecrime-impact-statements/ hc-impact-statements.pdf 4 The Crown Prosecution Service website explains the use of the victim personal statement at www.cps.gov.uk/ legal/v_to_z/victim_ personal_statements/ 5 Available at www. english-heritage.org. uk/content/importeddocs/a-e/arch-pack.pdf
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=