The Court of Appeal has dismissed the appeal of Roger Pilling, a Loveclough resident sentenced to five years and two months in prison, alongside his co-conspirator, Craig Best, who received a similar sentence for their involvement in an audacious crime involving the sale of historically significant Viking coins. The case, which unfurled dramatically, underscores not only the legal ramifications of their actions but also the cultural significance of the artifacts they attempted to sell.
In May 2023, Pilling and Best were convicted of conspiring to sell a collection of 44 coins from the 9th century, a haul valued at an astonishing £766,000. The coins were not just mere currency; they were pieces of history, imbued with great cultural and historical value to the United Kingdom. In a shocking twist, the men believed they were selling these rare coins to a buyer from the United States, only to discover later that the buyer was, in fact, an undercover police officer.
The coins in question were believed to have been buried by a Viking and included two extraordinarily rare two-headed coins depicting Alfred of Wessex and Ceolwulf. These coins, crucial to the understanding of early medieval history, carry immense significance, as they represent a time when the political landscape of Britain was undergoing drastic changes due to Viking incursions. Alfred of Wessex is celebrated as a key figure in the resistance against Viking invasions, while Ceolwulf, often seen through a more dubious lens, has been described by contemporaneous Saxon writers as a Viking puppet ruler. The attempted sale of these coins—never declared as treasure—posed not only a financial crime but also a calculated attempt to erase a key part of the nation’s historical narrative.
During the appeal hearings, which took place on October 30, Pilling, who is now 76 years old, and Best, aged 48 from Bishop Auckland, County Durham, argued for a reduction in their sentences, citing a belief that their punishments were “manifestly excessive.” The lawyers representing them highlighted key factors in the case, with Best’s counsel emphasizing that Best had unwittingly become embroiled in a serious offense, having been approached by Pilling to facilitate the sale.
The judges presiding over the appeal, however, were not swayed by their arguments. Mr. Justice Murray, leading the panel, characterized the men’s scheme as a deliberate attempt to “delete history,” asserting that had their plot succeeded, it would have significantly diluted the shared history of the nation. The legal environment in which these men operated was not merely a crime of coin selling; it encapsulated a broader cultural crime against heritage and identity.
The arrest of Best marked a pivotal moment in the investigation. In May 2019, he was apprehended at a hotel in Durham while in possession of three of the stolen coins. The meeting had been arranged under false pretenses; Best met with a detective posing as a metals expert who ostensibly represented a broker for a wealthy American buyer. Meanwhile, Pilling was arrested in his home, where police recovered an additional 41 coins, confirming their suspicions about the illicit nature of the operation.
The trial, which culminated in 2023, revealed that both defendants were involved in conspiracy to convert criminal property, as well as a separate charge of possession of criminal property. Testimony presented during the proceedings indicated that Pilling had secured the collection through what the court characterized as the “black market.” The coins, intricately crafted and historically pivotal, were estimated to have been minted between 874 AD and 879 AD, a testament to their age and significance.
Further complicating the narrative, the sentencing judge determined that the 44 coins were part of a larger, previously undisclosed find known as the Herefordshire or Leominster Hoard, discovered in 2015. This hoard, which contains a wealth of historical artifacts, is estimated to be worth millions of pounds. However, like the coins that Pilling and Best attempted to sell, it had also not been reported to the authorities as treasure, raising significant questions about the handling and treatment of such artifacts in the public domain.
During the appeal proceedings, Pilling submitted written arguments asserting that the court had failed to give sufficient consideration to mitigating factors such as his advanced age and medical condition, as well as his reliance on his wife for support. He chose to represent himself in the courtroom rather than present his case through a lawyer, which may have influenced the outcome. Notably, his absence during the hearing may have also impacted how the judges perceived his commitment to addressing the serious charges against him.
In contrast, Chris Morrison, representing Best, acknowledged that the misconduct involved was significant. However, he expressed that the sentence for his client might be viewed as disproportionately severe upon further reflection. It is not uncommon in legal proceedings for defenses to argue for leniency, but the nature of the offenses in this case was compounded by the historic ramifications of attempting to sell such culturally important artifacts.
When delivering their ruling, the judges were unequivocal in their rejection of the appeals. They highlighted the defendants’ premeditated efforts to sell the coins on the black market, a decision made out of the clear understanding that they could not legitimately market these items within the UK. Mr. Justice Murray pointed out that among the coins Best and Pilling intended to sell was one that had the potential to “rewrite the history of King Alfred and the little-known King of Mercia.” The depth of the cultural loss that could have occurred had their plan come to fruition weighed heavily on the judges’ final decision.
In the broader context, this case brings to light the ethical considerations surrounding the ownership and sale of historical artifacts. The story of Pilling and Best serves as a stark reminder of the delicate interplay between individual actions and collective heritage. The attempted sale of these Viking coins not only reflects a legal transgression but also a deeper cultural misconduct—one where the significance of history is overshadowed by the greed of individuals seeking profit without consideration for the shared narrative of the nation.
The legal battle may have concluded, but the implications of this case are far-reaching. As society grapples with the challenges of historical preservation and the rightful ownership of artifacts, situations like that of Pilling and Best can serve as critical reminders of the responsibilities that come with possessing pieces of the past. Whether in local communities or across states, understanding and valuing history is paramount, making it essential to recognize the significance of such artifacts not only as objects of monetary worth but as symbols of cultural identity and heritage.
In retrospect, the episode involving Roger Pilling and Craig Best casts a long shadow over the world of antiquities and historical artifacts. Their ambition to navigate the underground marketplace ultimately led them to face the full weight of the law, resulting in significant prison sentences that reflect the severity with which society views not only the crime of selling stolen goods but also the attempt to erase significant elements of its historical narrative. While their appeals have been denied, the legacy of this case will likely resonate in ongoing discussions about the valuation and treatment of historical artifacts in the UK and beyond, reminding us all that history is a story meant to be preserved and celebrated, not concealed or exploited.