The state of heritage and cultural property policing in England & Wales, France and Italy
| Author | John Kerr |
| DOI | 10.1177/1477370818803047 |
| Published date | 01 July 2020 |
| Date | 01 July 2020 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
803047EUC0010.1177/1477370818803047European Journal of CriminologyKerr
research-article2018
Article
European Journal of Criminology
2020, Vol. 17(4) 441 –460
The state of heritage and
© The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
cultural property policing
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370818803047
DOI: 10.1177/1477370818803047
journals.sagepub.com/home/euc
in England & Wales, France
and Italy
John Kerr
University of Roehampton, UK
Abstract
Presenting a large threat to irreplaceable heritage, property, cultural knowledge and cultural
economies across the world, heritage and cultural property crimes offer case studies through
which to consider the challenges, choices and practices that shape 21st-century policing. This
article uses empirical research conducted in England & Wales, France and Italy to examine
heritage and cultural property policing. It considers the threat before investigating three crucial
questions. First, who is involved in this policing? Second, how are they involved in this policing?
Third, why are they involved? This last question is the most important and is central to the article
as it examines why, in an era of severe economic challenges for the governments in the case
studies, the public sector would choose to lead policing.
Keywords
Art crime, heritage and cultural property crimes, policing, problematization
Introduction
Globally, heritage and cultural property crimes pose considerable threats to property,
knowledge, unique heritage and cultural economies. The extent of the threats grows fur-
ther with the links that some of the crimes have to other illicit activities such as drugs,
fraud and terrorism (Kerr, 2015; Mackenzie, 2005; Yates, 2014). Combatting these often
cross-border crimes presents significant challenges for policing stakeholders and herit-
age and cultural property locations at local, national and international levels. This article
uses empirical research conducted in three European case studies – England & Wales,
Corresponding author:
John Kerr, Department of Social Sciences, University of Roehampton, Hirst Building, 80 Roehampton Lane,
London, SW15 5SL, UK.
Email: john.kerr@roehampton.ac.uk
442
European Journal of Criminology 17(4)
France and Italy – to examine who is involved in this policing, how they are involved in
this policing and why they are involved in it. The role of the public police remains crucial
in two of the case studies. However, the roles of other public sector stakeholders and the
private sector are also central to this examination into an important area of policing that
encapsulates many of the challenges, decisions and practices that shape and characterize
21st-century global policing.
Taking Brodeur’s argument that comparative studies of policing are essential in
understanding how policing works despite there being no ideal model (Brodeur, 1995:
10), this research is not seeking an ‘ideal’ or one size fits all model from its analysis of
different approaches in heritage and cultural property policing. Instead, it takes a more
pragmatic ‘learning from differences’ approach (Hufnagel, 2013: 14). With the future of
policing appearing in many arenas to constitute post-policing security formations defined
by public and private interrelationships or private takeovers, this article analyses why
heritage and cultural property crimes have been problematized (Foucault, 1988, 1998)
more in two case studies than the third. Through this analysis, it answers an important
question: in an era of economic problems and budget cutting, why are public police
forces in Europe involved to such an extent in heritage and cultural property policing?
Context
There is a significant knowledge gap about the crimes and how to address them. Proposed
figures for the extent of heritage and cultural property crimes lack empirical evidence;
for example, cultural property objects are frequently not recorded separately from other
property by the public police in many countries (Chappell and Hufnagel, 2014; Kerr,
2015). However, what is known is that heritage and cultural property crimes pose signifi-
cant policing challenges at local, national and global levels owing to the cross-border
activities, violence, shifting crime trends, links to other illicit activities, cultural and
financial value of heritage and cultural property, and the belief that some locations and
objects are soft targets (Chappell and Hufnagel, 2014; Kerr, 2015). Recent examples of
crime trends about which we are aware include the thefts of metal art objects, Chinese art
objects (particularly jade), and the continuing looting of antiquities that occurs in many
source countries across the globe to be sold in demand countries (for example, Brodie,
2014; Hardy, 2014; Mackenzie and Davis, 2014; Yates, 2014).
The limited amount of academic work on policing these illicit activities has high-
lighted that it is rare for public policing agencies to prioritize heritage and cultural prop-
erty policing (Block, 2011; Chappell and Hufnagel, 2014; Dobovsek and Slak, 2013;
Kerr, 2015). Chappell and Hufnagel (2014: 3) sum up the situation: ‘in general law
enforcement officials in many parts of the world almost certainly remain today as ill
prepared and ill equipped as their French counterparts were in the early 1900s when deal-
ing with all forms of art crime.’ Arguably, France, Italy and Spain are examples of coun-
tries whose governments prioritize heritage and cultural property policing (Block, 2011;
Chappell and Hufnagel, 2014; Rush and Millington, 2015). It is for this reason that this
study has examined France and Italy, as well as another in which a plural policing
approach is taken, England & Wales. Plural policing can be characterized by the lack of
a locus of power in policing and the fact that the public sector might be only one part of
Kerr
443
a network of security providers or disappear altogether (Johnston and Shearing, 2003;
Loader and Walker, 2006). This relates to Reiner’s statement that ‘policing’ ‘may be car-
ried out by a number of different processes and institutional arrangements’ (Reiner, 2010:
4). It is also relevant to concerns about the role of the public police as private stakehold-
ers take over many policing terrains (Ericson, 2007). The fact that a state-led public
policing approach to heritage and cultural property policing is taken in France and Italy
compared with the plural policing framework in England & Wales provides a significant
comparison to help generate more knowledge of this area of policing. This is particularly
important because there is a lack of knowledge about policing models that exist in herit-
age and cultural property policing, and previous research has called for more in-depth
investigation into differences between policing approaches taken in European countries
(Kerr, 2015).
After the next section explaining the method, the article begins its analysis of heritage
and cultural property policing by considering the threats posed by these crimes. It then
examines who is involved in this policing and how. Lastly, it investigates why they are
involved in this policing.
Method
A qualitative mixed methods approach was taken in the empirical research carried out in
England & Wales, France and Italy in 2015–16. The data sources were interviews and
observations. This approach has similarities with previous research on art theft in London
that used interviews, observations and participant observations (Kerr, 2015). An induc-
tive approach was taken, with the main conceptual and theoretical work occurring after
the collection of the data. Despite this, my prior knowledge of previous research and my
preconceived ideas about some approaches taken in Europe inevitably influenced the
research.
Generic purposive sampling (Bryman, 2012) was employed in sampling the context
(the countries chosen for their differing approaches) and in sampling the participants and
locations within each case study. Not enough reliable empirical data is a major concern
when conducting comparative policing research (Van Stokkom and Terpstra, 2018).
Therefore, although subjectivity inevitably influenced the direct sampling strategy, this
type of sampling was important because it resulted in an appropriate sample as the prin-
ciple sources were public and private stakeholders involved in heritage and cultural
property policing in the case studies.
The first and most important data source was 12 interviews. Interviewees included
people who currently work (or used to) for London’s Metropolitan Police Service’s Art
and Antiques Unit (the only art and antiques unit in England & Wales), the Central Office
for the Fight against Trafficking in Cultural Goods in France, and the Carabinieri
Headquarters for the Protection of Cultural Heritage in Italy. In addition, the interviewees
included the Policing Adviser to Historic England and other people whose work in insur-
ance and loss adjusting, museums, private sector art detection and recovery makes them
directly involved in heritage and cultural property policing. Regarding ethical considera-
tions, informed consent was gained before each interview. Also, universal anonymity is
employed for the interviewees where possible. The interviews were semi-structured in the
444
European Journal of Criminology 17(4)
sense that they were shaped by key themes: Threats to heritage and cultural property;
Security challenges; Who is involved in this...
To continue reading
Request your trial