Judicial Review
The Case (as put) for Judicial Review
by Arthur Pendragon on Monday, 12 September 2011
THE CASE FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
Re The Queen on the application of KING ARTHUR PENDRAGON verses MINISTRY OF JUSTICE
CO/13022/2010
Skeleton argument
I will show, that;
(1) The Authorities did not and indeed could not have given any weight what-so-ever to my submissions.
(2) The Authorities, by their own admission (and contained in their submissions) have absolutely no intention of honouring their pledges, and thereby giving any weight what-so-ever to my submissions.
(3) From the outset, ALL the relevant Authorities colluded and conspired (against the spirit of the law) to make it virtually impossible for any serious consideration to be given to my concerns.
(4) It was and still is, (despite their assurances to the contrary) their intention that these remains are to be placed in a museum.
(5) The premise as stated for the extension is flawed, (and known to be so) in that;
A, This is not the only chance they have for this research, as borne out in their own submissions.
B, The extension was wholly unnecessary.
Work was only carried out on a part time basis, as it was in their interests to apply for such an extension, at a later date, in order to await an amendment to the Law to allow museum retention, which has been their aim all along.
(6) The MOJ in concert with EH and Sheffield University have shown a flagrant disregard for the Law and manipulated the situation for their own ends, and to maintain the status quo.
(7) In order for Justice to be seen to be done and the public interests to be served a Judicial Review is wholly appropriate, proportionate and desirable.
Update and Background
Since the application was made a question has been raised in the House of Lords and an open letter signed by 41 prominent members of the Archaeologist community to the Justice Minister (Kenneth Clark MP) was printed in the National Press calling for a change in the Law to allow museum retention of these ancient cremated Human remains.
Burial act 1857
Question
Asked by Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will amend the burial act 1857 to ensure that significant prehistoric or ancient human remains can lawfully be conserved and curated in perpetuity in appropriate museums or designated institutions for the purpose of scientific study and research [HL5513]
The Minister of State, Minister of Justice (Lord McNally)
We are currently considering whether it may be possible to take forward changes to burial legislation generally, including the Burial Act 1857 which regulates the exhumation of human remains. In the mean time, we continue to apply the present exhumation licensing system in a way which recognises, as far as possible, the interests of archaeologists, museum professionals, and the general public.
It is my belief that if this extension is not challenged now, there will be no further opportunity to do so. And as a result these ancient cremated human remains, arguably ‘The founding fathers of this once great nation’ will be destined for retention in a museum drawer.
The Ministry of Justice have as stated above (The Case for Judicial review), and I will show contained in their submissions, been working in concert with the other relevant authorities against any possibility of ever giving any weight what-so-ever to my legitimate concerns that these particular remains will never be reinterred at, and in what should have been, their final resting place, Stonehenge.
It may be of some use at this point to bring the following to the attention of the court.
From Ministry of Justice
Statement on burial law and archaeology
Coroners Unit, April 2008
(I would bring to the attention of the court that this statement is taken from Burial Law and policy in the 21st century The Way Forward and is made available to all through the UK Gov site on the World Wide Web and predates the exhumation of the remains in question. It should be noted that the wording retrospective effect is used in this statement.)
Point 3
During the course of the year, as a second stage of reform, consideration will be given to amending existing burial ground legislation so that it can be more responsive to 21st century needs. The aim will be in particular to allow otherwise lawful and legitimate activities, such as the archaeological examination of human remains, to proceed without the constraints of legislation not designed to deal with such issues, and with retrospective effect as far as possible. In taking this forward, the Ministry of Justice aims to continue to work closely with the Department for Culture Media and Sport, English Heritage, and relevant professional bodies.
Summary of Evidence to be presented at Full Hearing.
It has always been our concern that these remains, despite assurances to the contrary, were and are destined for display in a museum facility.
These fears and concerns have been realised in that the Ministers and Civil Servants from EH, DCMS, and the M.O.J have conspired to make it so.
I have in my possession certain documents obtained under The Freedom of Information Act that clearly shows this to be the case;
Including an extract from Minutes of a meeting where it is stated
“This item is potentially exempt from public access under the Freedom of information Act, sec 36; prejudiced to the effective conduct of public affairs. Other exemptions may apply”
Clearly, they did not/and do not wish their true intentions to be in the public domain and are ‘fobbing’ us (The Druids) off with half truths and Pseudo-promises that they have NO INTENTION of ever honouring.
As far back as May 2008 before the Ancestors were removed the Ministry of Justice were giving Sheffield the nod;
‘”At present, we cannot authorise the deposition of remains in a museum or other similar facility under the exhumation licence. However, I can say that consideration is being given to amending legislation so that I can deal more flexably with such plans in the future. We intend to keep the Archaeologists informed of progress, in the meantime, applications to extend or vary terms will be considered where required.”
From a letter M.O.J. to Sheffield University.
And English Heritage took it when applying for the extension
‘”as current professional guidelines also recommend, prehistoric human remains of this importance should normally be kept in museums for any further examination and analysis, along with the rest of the excavation archive. You will recall that we discussed this with you, and were reassured by your public statements that extensions would be granted where there was good reason, and that you were working actively to amend the relevant legislation.”
From a letter Applying for the extension from EH to the M.O.J.
Including the information that the whole application is based on the premise that this is the only chance the scientific community has to study and to carbon date the Ancient Builders of Stonehenge. However it has come to light in their submissions that they have already used the same ‘New’ techniques on remains taken from other Aubrey holes at Stonehenge and from cremation pit found at Durrington walls.
Summary
In essence my case is simply that despite claims and promises to the country the M.O.J could not have given any weight what-so-ever to my submissions as they along with the other relevant bodies had a ‘done deal’ which in practice will mean that their promises and assurances are nothing more than a ’sham’ and raises several question in relation to Constitutional Law and is therefore in the wider public interest to proceed in order for Justice to be seen to be done.
Since preparing this document I have read with interest the assurances given to and reported by Mike Pitts of the Scientific (Archaeologist’s) community by the M.O.J that they will re-interpret existing law more favourably toward the scientific community with a view to museum retention of remains such as these in question.
Clearly they are trying to be ‘all things to all men’ and are telling each Faction what they wish to hear. This may be all well and good in parliamentary and diplomatic circles but, leaves both diametrically opposed parties, mistakenly believing they have won some small victory but quite clearly resolves nothing, to the satisfaction of either side.
CONCLUSION
So in conclusion the general public and groups I represent, feel that because of the ramifications of this duplicity and in the interests of legal clarification (with specific regard to the remains in question) In order for Justice to be seen to be done and the public interests to be served a Judicial Review is wholly appropriate, proportionate and desirable.
It is hoped that the Court will take into consideration that, whilst I have the facts at my disposal to present such arguments, I am not trained to do so and this presentation may not be of the same standard as the Authorities who have instructed learned Counsel to do so.
THE CASE FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
PLEAS
Re The Queen on the application of KING ARTHUR PENDRAGON verses MINISTRY OF JUSTICE
CO/13022/2010
We will show that the Authorities in question have throughout had a flagrant disregard for the Law, The Spirit of the Law, The Judiciary, and the courts;
For Example;
"In the matter of The Historic Buildings & Monuments Commission versus Mr R. Maughfling and others at the Royal Courts of Justice, Tues, 6th July '99, case no HC-99-02944, Lady Justice Arden ruled that "in future English Heritage should take into account the need for public consultation, especially on a local level, and respect the feelings and wishes of genuine religious groups, such as those represented by The Council of British Druid Orders,"
No such public consultation has yet taken place in respect of the removal or proposed permanent retention of the Ancient Cremated Human remains in question.
Perhaps the most damming evidence that has come to light in my investigations is this;
Provided to me by M.O.J under the Freedom of Information Act ( later included in their submissions);
C: Extract from Operations plan (Appendix to Research Proposal as above)
“5.3 Ministry of Justice authorisation for recovery of human remains The Ministry of Justice’s current licensing arrangements for exhuming human remains are faulty and known to be so, since they leave no possibility that human remains might be retained in museum collections, instead, they require that archaeological remains are; reburied after the period of their analysis is completed. Their only available options are; re-interment, cremation, leave in situ, or ‘not yet decided’, Our application to M.o.J. is submitted and pending. On the advice of EH Centre for Archaeology director, XXXXX (who has consulted MoJ directly on this proposal) , we have ticked the box for re-interment after a period of five years of detailed analysis and dating. It is presumed that MoJ will have modified the currently inadequate arrangements to include museum retention by that time.
Should museum curation be deemed acceptable if MoJ review their recommendations, the human remains will be archived for museum storage according to UKIC guidelines (1990). Other non-human artefactual and ecofactual material will be prepared according to UKIC guidelines for deposition in Salisbury Museum.”
IT IS PLEADED
(ref’ point 29 Defendant’s summary grounds of Defence)
That the (Defendant) M.O.J
Did not exercise their legal responsibility on the part of the public bodies concerned to demonstrate that they have reached a fair decision without undue bias, and that such a bias and procedural impropriety can be demonstrated throughout their decision making process and is grounds for Judicial Review.
IT IS PLEADED
(ref’ point 30 Defendants summary grounds of Defence)
That I have (The case for Judicial Review) satisfactorily particularised the arguable grounds for Judicial Review
THE CASE FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
Re The Queen on the application of KING ARTHUR PENDRAGON verses MINISTRY OF JUSTICE
CO/13022/2010
Skeleton argument
I will show, that;
(1) The Authorities did not and indeed could not have given any weight what-so-ever to my submissions.
(2) The Authorities, by their own admission (and contained in their submissions) have absolutely no intention of honouring their pledges, and thereby giving any weight what-so-ever to my submissions.
(3) From the outset, ALL the relevant Authorities colluded and conspired (against the spirit of the law) to make it virtually impossible for any serious consideration to be given to my concerns.
(4) It was and still is, (despite their assurances to the contrary) their intention that these remains are to be placed in a museum.
(5) The premise as stated for the extension is flawed, (and known to be so) in that;
A, This is not the only chance they have for this research, as borne out in their own submissions.
B, The extension was wholly unnecessary.
Work was only carried out on a part time basis, as it was in their interests to apply for such an extension, at a later date, in order to await an amendment to the Law to allow museum retention, which has been their aim all along.
(6) The MOJ in concert with EH and Sheffield University have shown a flagrant disregard for the Law and manipulated the situation for their own ends, and to maintain the status quo.
(7) In order for Justice to be seen to be done and the public interests to be served a Judicial Review is wholly appropriate, proportionate and desirable.
Update and Background
Since the application was made a question has been raised in the House of Lords and an open letter signed by 41 prominent members of the Archaeologist community to the Justice Minister (Kenneth Clark MP) was printed in the National Press calling for a change in the Law to allow museum retention of these ancient cremated Human remains.
Burial act 1857
Question
Asked by Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will amend the burial act 1857 to ensure that significant prehistoric or ancient human remains can lawfully be conserved and curated in perpetuity in appropriate museums or designated institutions for the purpose of scientific study and research [HL5513]
The Minister of State, Minister of Justice (Lord McNally)
We are currently considering whether it may be possible to take forward changes to burial legislation generally, including the Burial Act 1857 which regulates the exhumation of human remains. In the mean time, we continue to apply the present exhumation licensing system in a way which recognises, as far as possible, the interests of archaeologists, museum professionals, and the general public.
It is my belief that if this extension is not challenged now, there will be no further opportunity to do so. And as a result these ancient cremated human remains, arguably ‘The founding fathers of this once great nation’ will be destined for retention in a museum drawer.
The Ministry of Justice have as stated above (The Case for Judicial review), and I will show contained in their submissions, been working in concert with the other relevant authorities against any possibility of ever giving any weight what-so-ever to my legitimate concerns that these particular remains will never be reinterred at, and in what should have been, their final resting place, Stonehenge.
It may be of some use at this point to bring the following to the attention of the court.
From Ministry of Justice
Statement on burial law and archaeology
Coroners Unit, April 2008
(I would bring to the attention of the court that this statement is taken from Burial Law and policy in the 21st century The Way Forward and is made available to all through the UK Gov site on the World Wide Web and predates the exhumation of the remains in question. It should be noted that the wording retrospective effect is used in this statement.)
Point 3
During the course of the year, as a second stage of reform, consideration will be given to amending existing burial ground legislation so that it can be more responsive to 21st century needs. The aim will be in particular to allow otherwise lawful and legitimate activities, such as the archaeological examination of human remains, to proceed without the constraints of legislation not designed to deal with such issues, and with retrospective effect as far as possible. In taking this forward, the Ministry of Justice aims to continue to work closely with the Department for Culture Media and Sport, English Heritage, and relevant professional bodies.
Summary of Evidence to be presented at Full Hearing.
It has always been our concern that these remains, despite assurances to the contrary, were and are destined for display in a museum facility.
These fears and concerns have been realised in that the Ministers and Civil Servants from EH, DCMS, and the M.O.J have conspired to make it so.
I have in my possession certain documents obtained under The Freedom of Information Act that clearly shows this to be the case;
Including an extract from Minutes of a meeting where it is stated
“This item is potentially exempt from public access under the Freedom of information Act, sec 36; prejudiced to the effective conduct of public affairs. Other exemptions may apply”
Clearly, they did not/and do not wish their true intentions to be in the public domain and are ‘fobbing’ us (The Druids) off with half truths and Pseudo-promises that they have NO INTENTION of ever honouring.
As far back as May 2008 before the Ancestors were removed the Ministry of Justice were giving Sheffield the nod;
‘”At present, we cannot authorise the deposition of remains in a museum or other similar facility under the exhumation licence. However, I can say that consideration is being given to amending legislation so that I can deal more flexably with such plans in the future. We intend to keep the Archaeologists informed of progress, in the meantime, applications to extend or vary terms will be considered where required.”
From a letter M.O.J. to Sheffield University.
And English Heritage took it when applying for the extension
‘”as current professional guidelines also recommend, prehistoric human remains of this importance should normally be kept in museums for any further examination and analysis, along with the rest of the excavation archive. You will recall that we discussed this with you, and were reassured by your public statements that extensions would be granted where there was good reason, and that you were working actively to amend the relevant legislation.”
From a letter Applying for the extension from EH to the M.O.J.
Including the information that the whole application is based on the premise that this is the only chance the scientific community has to study and to carbon date the Ancient Builders of Stonehenge. However it has come to light in their submissions that they have already used the same ‘New’ techniques on remains taken from other Aubrey holes at Stonehenge and from cremation pit found at Durrington walls.
Summary
In essence my case is simply that despite claims and promises to the country the M.O.J could not have given any weight what-so-ever to my submissions as they along with the other relevant bodies had a ‘done deal’ which in practice will mean that their promises and assurances are nothing more than a ’sham’ and raises several question in relation to Constitutional Law and is therefore in the wider public interest to proceed in order for Justice to be seen to be done.
Since preparing this document I have read with interest the assurances given to and reported by Mike Pitts of the Scientific (Archaeologist’s) community by the M.O.J that they will re-interpret existing law more favourably toward the scientific community with a view to museum retention of remains such as these in question.
Clearly they are trying to be ‘all things to all men’ and are telling each Faction what they wish to hear. This may be all well and good in parliamentary and diplomatic circles but, leaves both diametrically opposed parties, mistakenly believing they have won some small victory but quite clearly resolves nothing, to the satisfaction of either side.
CONCLUSION
So in conclusion the general public and groups I represent, feel that because of the ramifications of this duplicity and in the interests of legal clarification (with specific regard to the remains in question) In order for Justice to be seen to be done and the public interests to be served a Judicial Review is wholly appropriate, proportionate and desirable.
It is hoped that the Court will take into consideration that, whilst I have the facts at my disposal to present such arguments, I am not trained to do so and this presentation may not be of the same standard as the Authorities who have instructed learned Counsel to do so.
THE CASE FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
PLEAS
Re The Queen on the application of KING ARTHUR PENDRAGON verses MINISTRY OF JUSTICE
CO/13022/2010
We will show that the Authorities in question have throughout had a flagrant disregard for the Law, The Spirit of the Law, The Judiciary, and the courts;
For Example;
"In the matter of The Historic Buildings & Monuments Commission versus Mr R. Maughfling and others at the Royal Courts of Justice, Tues, 6th July '99, case no HC-99-02944, Lady Justice Arden ruled that "in future English Heritage should take into account the need for public consultation, especially on a local level, and respect the feelings and wishes of genuine religious groups, such as those represented by The Council of British Druid Orders,"
No such public consultation has yet taken place in respect of the removal or proposed permanent retention of the Ancient Cremated Human remains in question.
Perhaps the most damming evidence that has come to light in my investigations is this;
Provided to me by M.O.J under the Freedom of Information Act ( later included in their submissions);
C: Extract from Operations plan (Appendix to Research Proposal as above)
“5.3 Ministry of Justice authorisation for recovery of human remains The Ministry of Justice’s current licensing arrangements for exhuming human remains are faulty and known to be so, since they leave no possibility that human remains might be retained in museum collections, instead, they require that archaeological remains are; reburied after the period of their analysis is completed. Their only available options are; re-interment, cremation, leave in situ, or ‘not yet decided’, Our application to M.o.J. is submitted and pending. On the advice of EH Centre for Archaeology director, XXXXX (who has consulted MoJ directly on this proposal) , we have ticked the box for re-interment after a period of five years of detailed analysis and dating. It is presumed that MoJ will have modified the currently inadequate arrangements to include museum retention by that time.
Should museum curation be deemed acceptable if MoJ review their recommendations, the human remains will be archived for museum storage according to UKIC guidelines (1990). Other non-human artefactual and ecofactual material will be prepared according to UKIC guidelines for deposition in Salisbury Museum.”
IT IS PLEADED
(ref’ point 29 Defendant’s summary grounds of Defence)
That the (Defendant) M.O.J
Did not exercise their legal responsibility on the part of the public bodies concerned to demonstrate that they have reached a fair decision without undue bias, and that such a bias and procedural impropriety can be demonstrated throughout their decision making process and is grounds for Judicial Review.
IT IS PLEADED
(ref’ point 30 Defendants summary grounds of Defence)
That I have (The case for Judicial Review) satisfactorily particularised the arguable grounds for Judicial Review
Three little questions for The Authorities
by Arthur Pendragon on Wednesday, 31 August 2011
DOUBLE STANDARDS
Why is it, if you were to put a Human skull atop of your staff, you would be viewed as a barbarian, put the same skull behind glass and you are viewed as a ‘scientist’?
How is it, you get jailed for hanging off the cenotaph and applauded for ‘digging up’ the Ancestors at Stonehenge?
Why are ‘the cremation pits’ at Stonehenge allowed to be disturbed and those at Salisbury Crematorium protected under British Law?
Until our Government can answer these questions to my satisfaction I will continue to seek redress under the law. Write to your MP’s and if they answer to your satisfaction, let me know, ‘till then…..
DOUBLE STANDARDS
Why is it, if you were to put a Human skull atop of your staff, you would be viewed as a barbarian, put the same skull behind glass and you are viewed as a ‘scientist’?
How is it, you get jailed for hanging off the cenotaph and applauded for ‘digging up’ the Ancestors at Stonehenge?
Why are ‘the cremation pits’ at Stonehenge allowed to be disturbed and those at Salisbury Crematorium protected under British Law?
Until our Government can answer these questions to my satisfaction I will continue to seek redress under the law. Write to your MP’s and if they answer to your satisfaction, let me know, ‘till then…..
Onward we charge
25 August 2011
The reason I did not announce my pending appearance at the Royal Courts over my application for a Judicial review of the M.O.J’s decision to extend the licence to Sheffield University for a period of five more years, has nothing what-so-ever to do with the Authorities whom I am in conflict with. It was more to do with the Druid and Pagan groups who not only failed to support my call for such a review but in some cases actively opposed such a strategy.
It is hoped that now the Archaeologists have come clean about their intent to place these ‘Guardians’ In a museum facility that these groups will now get behind this continued campaign.
There are however certain ‘Ground rules’ to be followed, as we move forward on this issue. We may (rightly so) attack the policies of the Archaeologists and their allies in Government Departments, Ministries and Quangos, but we will not attack the personalities. We will conduct this campaign in a dignified manner. They may be as personally insulting to me as they wish, we will NOT lower ourselves to that level and be insulting back. We will attack the Policies not the personalities.
The fight goes on, through the courts, through non-violent direct action, through the media and through any other medium we see fit to work through.
I believe that I have proved myself to be a worthy Champion in this fight and would ask for your continued support, in simple terms Lead, Follow or get out of the way.
Onward we Charge. King Arthur Pendragon /|\
The reason I did not announce my pending appearance at the Royal Courts over my application for a Judicial review of the M.O.J’s decision to extend the licence to Sheffield University for a period of five more years, has nothing what-so-ever to do with the Authorities whom I am in conflict with. It was more to do with the Druid and Pagan groups who not only failed to support my call for such a review but in some cases actively opposed such a strategy.
It is hoped that now the Archaeologists have come clean about their intent to place these ‘Guardians’ In a museum facility that these groups will now get behind this continued campaign.
There are however certain ‘Ground rules’ to be followed, as we move forward on this issue. We may (rightly so) attack the policies of the Archaeologists and their allies in Government Departments, Ministries and Quangos, but we will not attack the personalities. We will conduct this campaign in a dignified manner. They may be as personally insulting to me as they wish, we will NOT lower ourselves to that level and be insulting back. We will attack the Policies not the personalities.
The fight goes on, through the courts, through non-violent direct action, through the media and through any other medium we see fit to work through.
I believe that I have proved myself to be a worthy Champion in this fight and would ask for your continued support, in simple terms Lead, Follow or get out of the way.
Onward we Charge. King Arthur Pendragon /|\
Told you so...
by Arthur Pendragon on Wednesday, 24 August 2011
QUOTED FROM MIKE PITTS BLOG YESTERDAY
"7. In the meantime, following a public campaign by archaeologists that I have written about elsewhere on this blog, the ministry revised its approach to licensing. New licenses now allow for the option of retaining archaeological human remains indefinitely. So while it is strictly correct, as the press reported yesterday, that the Stonehenge cremation burials are to be reburied in a few years’ time, we have every right to expect that in fact the license will be changed to allow for permanent retention – which of course is what we believe strongly should happen."
QUOTED FROM MIKE PITTS BLOG YESTERDAY
"7. In the meantime, following a public campaign by archaeologists that I have written about elsewhere on this blog, the ministry revised its approach to licensing. New licenses now allow for the option of retaining archaeological human remains indefinitely. So while it is strictly correct, as the press reported yesterday, that the Stonehenge cremation burials are to be reburied in a few years’ time, we have every right to expect that in fact the license will be changed to allow for permanent retention – which of course is what we believe strongly should happen."
A reply from the D.O.J to an inquiry by another group
14th June 2011
The same group who have been saying that I am wasting my time going for a Judicial Review. The same group who are now saying "something Fishy" Hate to say it, (No I don't), "Told you so" - read on.
"Thank you for your email.
Following concerns raised by archaeologists and others regarding the requirement to rebury ancient human remains, we have recently determined that the Burial Act 1857 can allow for wider range of options for the disposal of exhumed remains than was previously thought possible. With that in mind, it has been determined that it may not be necessary to require exhumed remains to be re-buried in every case. Applications will - and always have been - considered on a case by case basis. If there are any known objections to the exhumation and/or retention of the remains these will be taken in to consideration when deciding whether not a licence should be granted.
There are currently no forthcoming plans for legislative reform of the Burial Act 1857. If legislative reform was to be proposed, it would entail a full public consultation prior to being introduced to Parliament.
Regards
Paul"
The same group who have been saying that I am wasting my time going for a Judicial Review. The same group who are now saying "something Fishy" Hate to say it, (No I don't), "Told you so" - read on.
"Thank you for your email.
Following concerns raised by archaeologists and others regarding the requirement to rebury ancient human remains, we have recently determined that the Burial Act 1857 can allow for wider range of options for the disposal of exhumed remains than was previously thought possible. With that in mind, it has been determined that it may not be necessary to require exhumed remains to be re-buried in every case. Applications will - and always have been - considered on a case by case basis. If there are any known objections to the exhumation and/or retention of the remains these will be taken in to consideration when deciding whether not a licence should be granted.
There are currently no forthcoming plans for legislative reform of the Burial Act 1857. If legislative reform was to be proposed, it would entail a full public consultation prior to being introduced to Parliament.
Regards
Paul"
Check this out. Then tell me I was wrong to go for Judicial Review
by Arthur Pendragon on Sunday, 05 June 2011
Introducing the May/June issue of British Archaeology, available from Friday 8 April
A recurrent theme in this issue is how archaeology today wants you to be part of the quest, which we have reflected in the cover design (featuring the editor's aged and much-travelled trowel!). This is another magazine to read from front to back, with much new, topical and thought-provoking stuff.
Best Wishes
MIKE PITTS
Human Remains to be Retained
British Archaeology has learnt that after reviewing the 1857 Burial Act, the Ministry of Justice has decided that archaeologists in England and Wales will not now routinely be required to rebury all excavated human remains. Last year BA launch a campaign requesting re-interpretation of the law, and in February 40 archaeology professors wrote to the secretary of state for justice seeking long-term retention of remains. That wish appears to have been granted.
Introducing the May/June issue of British Archaeology, available from Friday 8 April
A recurrent theme in this issue is how archaeology today wants you to be part of the quest, which we have reflected in the cover design (featuring the editor's aged and much-travelled trowel!). This is another magazine to read from front to back, with much new, topical and thought-provoking stuff.
Best Wishes
MIKE PITTS
Human Remains to be Retained
British Archaeology has learnt that after reviewing the 1857 Burial Act, the Ministry of Justice has decided that archaeologists in England and Wales will not now routinely be required to rebury all excavated human remains. Last year BA launch a campaign requesting re-interpretation of the law, and in February 40 archaeology professors wrote to the secretary of state for justice seeking long-term retention of remains. That wish appears to have been granted.
