A Lancashire funeral assistant stole an expensive gold ring from the finger of a deceased priest entrusted to his care.
Nicholas Mather, 34, of Willow Close, Chorley, admitted two offences of theft when he recently appeared at Preston Magistrates' Court.
He was sentenced by the same court on Friday, 16th October 2026.
Theft is an offence under section 1 of the Theft Act 1968. The maximum sentence for theft is 7 years' custody on conviction on indictment; 12 months' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction. We have previously written an article on the legalities surrounding theft.
Mather was previously in the employment of B Livesey Limited Funeral Directors in Chorley, although it must be said that the company is aghast at his dishonesty and in no way culpable for his crimes.
In the course of that employment Mather was entrusted with the care of the deceaseds' bodies and their personal effects. Father Peter Crowther, a Roman Catholic priest, died on 1st March 2026 and the company was entrusted with his funeral arrangements.
On 8th March, as Father Peter's body lay at the business premises, Mather removed an 18-carat ring from his finger. The 34-year-old was working out his notice at the time, with concerns having already been raised about his attitude to work.
The ring had high sentimental value, having been given to Father Peter by his parents as an ordination present. It was inscribed with the words "TU ES SAC ERDOS IN AETERNUM", which translates to "I AM A PRIEST FOREVER", and it was his dying wish to be buried with it on his finger.
Having swiped the ring, which was valued between £3,000 and £3,500, Mather sold it to a pawnbroker for less than half its true value. He then used the proceeds to fund drugs. The ring was later melted down, so could not be recovered for Father Peter's family.
An investigation into Mather's conduct revealed that he had also stolen a Rolls Royce key box ring from the company (although I haven't the faintest idea what one of those is).
Father Peter's next of kin Kinga Gray-Grzecynska said: "This behaviour is utterly despicable, disgraceful and morally wrong.
"The theft was clearly premeditated and demonstrates a complete lack of compassion, respect and remorse, not only towards the deceased but also towards his family, friends, colleagues and all those affected by his actions."
Magistrates, who commented on "the worst case of theft they had heard", were of the view that Mather's crimes were serious enough to merit a community order.
The duration of the order has not been reported, but it included the requirement to complete 300 hours' unpaid work.
Mather was also ordered to pay £6,500 in compensation.
This is a horrendous crime. It represents the most gratuitous, evil breach of trust I have heard in a long time. There will be a lot of bereaved families in Chorley now worried, justifiably so, that Mather scavenged belongings from the coffins of their loved ones.
I have to say, on the basis of what I have read I am struggling to see how this can be anything other than a custody case (high culpability, category 3 harm). I take on trust that the bench concerned are aware of factors we aren't. However, even if the court had imposed a custodial sentence, I am sure that knight in shining armour, section 1 of the Sentencing Act 2026, would have come galloping to Mather's rescue.
2 comments:
This could easily be considered an A2 offence given the ring could not be recovered.
“ High value goods stolen (£10,000 to £100,000) and no significant additional harm or Medium value with significant additional harm to the victim or others”
I would argue for significant additional harm. That gives a starting point of 2 years. I think I would have been minded to send it up.
I had considered the significant additional harm aspect, but I'm not sure it's a factor. My interpretation, which may or may not be correct: The ring cannot really be said to have substantial value to Father Peter, because at the time of its theft he was already deceased and arguably therefore didn't own it any more. By the same token Father Peter's family had abandoned the ring to his grave, so arguably it didn't belong to them either. Father Peter clearly had a strong emotional attachment to the ring when he was alive, but again this wouldn't be a factor at the time it was stolen. Given these grey areas, I can see how the court has maybe been a bit cautious in deciding there was no significant additional harm.
Post a Comment