A Swansea woman who swiped a £5,000 diamond ring from a local jeweller has been given a one-week ultimatum by a judge to disclose the ring’s whereabouts, as a criminal court tries to establish whether the valuable item can be recovered. Megan Taylor, 28, appeared at Swansea Crown Court and admitted to the theft, yet has insisted that she does not know where the ring is, a claim that both her lawyer and the presiding judge have called into question.
The incident took place on 25 January this year at Simon Hughes Fine Diamond, a high-profile jewellers nestled within Swansea’s Quadrant shopping centre. Taylor entered the establishment on what she claimed was a simple mission—to discuss the custom design of a bespoke ring for her partner. According to details laid out before the court, Taylor was being assisted by a shop employee and was allowed to browse a tray of diamond rings. In a calculated move, she requested a glass of water, and while the sales assistant went to fetch it, Taylor swiftly removed one of the diamond rings, discreetly rearranging the others to cover up her theft.
The stolen item—a solitaire diamond ring valued at just under £5,000—went unnoticed for two days. As is routine for jewellers, a stock check eventually revealed its absence, prompting the store to alert South Wales Police. Officers arrested Taylor at her home on 8 February, where she admitted having visited the shop but denied any intention to steal. As a possible explanation, she suggested to police that the effects of cannabis, which she uses to manage epilepsy, may have impaired her judgement on the day in question.
Despite a thorough police search of Taylor’s property, the missing ring was not recovered. Taylor’s barrister, Hannah George, addressed her client’s persistent claims of ignorance regarding the ring’s location, telling the court that she had directly urged Taylor to reveal its whereabouts—with Taylor nonetheless maintaining she has no knowledge of what became of it.
The court also heard about Taylor’s financial history. In 2021, she inherited a substantial sum of £60,000, but in the months leading up to the theft, only about £5,000 reportedly remained. Of this, around £3,000 was earmarked for the custom ring she intended to purchase for her partner, according to defence submissions. Taylor is now said to be reliant on Universal Credit, receiving monthly payments of £790, and claims to be entirely without savings or other resources.
Presiding judge, His Honour Huw Rees, expressed notable scepticism regarding Taylor’s protestations of ignorance. In remarks delivered from the bench, he told Taylor: “You stole that valuable diamond ring. You put it in your pocket. I want to know where that ring is and whether it is recoverable.” Delivering a stern directive, Judge Rees adjourned sentencing for a week, ordering Taylor to both produce detailed evidence of her financial transactions and give the matter further thought—making clear that her cooperation would influence the upcoming sentence.
It is not uncommon in such cases for the court to delay sentencing in efforts to recover stolen property, with judges often highlighting the impact that both honesty and restitution have on the outcome for defendants. In Taylor’s situation, the absence of previous convictions may count in her favour, but the unresolved issue of the missing ring remains central to the court’s deliberations.
The saga has highlighted the challenges faced by businesses in protecting high-value stock from opportunistic theft. Jewellers remain a target for would-be thieves, given the small size and high value of items—forces which drive both preventative security measures and the vigilance of staff. For patrons and owners alike, this case represents a stark reminder that what may appear as a momentary lapse in attention can have costly consequences.
Taylor has been granted bail ahead of her next appearance, scheduled for Friday, 1 August. The case continues to generate interest locally, both for the value of the stolen diamond and for the unusual circumstances under which the theft was committed and now debated in open court. The legal process will ultimately determine not only Taylor’s immediate fate but whether the expensive and sentimental piece of jewellery will ever be returned to its rightful place.