CRIMINAL LAW Lesson 4

HANDLING STOLEN PROPERTY

There are forms for handling stolen property.

1. receiving is one form of handling stolen property;

2. Retaining is the other.
3. To undertake either the retention or the removal or even sale or
disposal (disposal can be legal e.g. disposal of land) whereas
removal is physical. It has to be for the benefit of a third party ie.
You undertake for a third party
4. When you assist in No. 3 i.e. in retention, removal disposal of any
goods and all these has to be done knowingly.
5. if you just make arrangement for the undertaking, you do not
undertake just make the arrangements for undertaking the
removal, you are the go-between and therefore liable for handling
stolen property.

RECEIVING:

If you actually physically take possession of a thing,

If you take control of a thing. Both of these do not require physical
handling, you can take possession without receiving it and accept
reception of goods when you are not physically present e.g. by fax or email
or by phone and the goods go to your godown.

In R V. Watson (1916) 2 KB 385 the appellant was convicted of receiving

goods knowing them to have been stolen. This is in England known as
receiving stolen property while we call it handling. He had met 2 men who
had told him they were in possession of stolen goods. In order to assist
them sell those goods he crossed a ferry with them and he left them
outside a shop and entered the shop alone where he negotiated with the
jeweller to buy the gold . he was charged of receiving the gold knowing it
to have been stolen. The gold was all along in the possession and control
of the two men but the jury found him guilty of being a negotiator while
knowing the gold to be stolen. On appeal the conviction was quashed the
court of appeal holding that he was only negotiating which did not mean
he was in control. They also said that being in possession of stolen goods
is necessary in order to constitute the offence of receiving stolen goods or
in our case handling stolen property.

The question is what if your assistance is not positive and does not
produce positive results e.g. if I ask you to help sell stolen property and
you look for buyers for my stolen property. Are you handling when you
are looking for a buyer or only after you have been successful in selling the
stolen property? You are responsible even when you look for the buyers
before there is a sale. Any move to assist is punishable.

Actual or physical manual possession is not necessary. You do not have to

show that somebody was there, all you have to prove is that someone was
in control. The possession need not be permanent for you to handle stolen
property, it can be a fraction of an hour or minute. The goods could also
be received by an agent, or a servant with the receivers authority.

Innocent receipt or receipt without knowledge is not stealing or handling

but if you have reason to believe, you acquire the mens rea or knowledge
if you lack the actus reus and the mens rea you are innocent.

If the thief retains exclusive control of the item, there is no stealing. Like
in Watson. The thief cannot be guilty of handling and cannot receive
although he may give instructions but he is still stealing and in
possession.

Undertaking or assisting – when you are undertaking it is not necessary to

be in possession or control as long as you do it on behalf of somebody else
then you will be guilty of handling stolen property.

Arranging to receive is bad enough. Just to make arrangements to receive

stolen goods is bad enough you do not have to receive. Arrangement must
be made before and not after the theft and must be made with the
knowledge that the goods are stolen.

Receiving retaining, arranging and all that are physical but it is possible to
give instruction by omission. But then against it is the qualification all the
time is only when you have a duty to act. In Brown (1970) 1QB 105 The
accused failed to tell the police about some stolen goods that were in his
premises. Under the law he was under no legal duty to do it. His silence
because he did not report the matter assisted the thief who was discovered
late. He was charged and found not guilty because he was under no duty
he had actually assisted on omission. But if he were on duty e.g. a
watchman on duty, he would have been under a legal duty to report. The
court went on to say that had he told lies, he would have been found guilty
since he was under a duty to tell the truth.

Mens Rea in Handling Stolen Property

Knowledge and Belief are the only mens rea in Handling Stolen Property.
The test is subjective and not objective that is whether or not you believed
the reasons. The test of whether or not you believed is subjective and not
objective, it is not whether you ought to have known the goods were
stolen, it is whether you knew

In Atwal & Masse (1971) 3 ALL ER 81. There was a dealer in second hand
goods who bought a watch the value was 25 pounds and he bought it for 5
pounds. He admitted that he knew he had taken a chance and he was
convicted of handling stolen property he appealed and it was held to have
been a misdirection to have told the jury that the accused was guilty if he
was suspicious and closed his eyes to it.

The person accused of handling stolen property does not have to have
known how the goods were stolen. He is deemed to know.

Any or a combination of he following evidence may be used to prove

someone guilty of handling. The best one is knowledge. That he knew
that the goods were stolen is the best evidence or if you prove that he had
reason to believe that the goods were stolen is also good evidence. When
you say that you had a reason to believe, it is objective.

Under Section 322 para 4 (p) of the Penal Code if you can give evidence
that that person who is charged with handling has in the last 12 months
been in possession or undertaken or assisted in the removal of any
stolen goods, it goes beyond conviction. The law is saying that you don’t
have to be convicted, all you have to do is show that they may have been
possession although they were not convicted.

Evidence of previous conviction within the last five years i.e. 5 years before
the charge of the following if you have been convicted of theft or receiving
or handling stolen property they can call all that evidence. It is evidence of
character. It affects both the conviction it may be an unfair way of proving
a case but it is still a way. It is also for purposes of punishment. One
deserves more if they have made it a habit of handling.

Evidence of conviction within the last five years you are required to give
the accused notice of 7 days that you will refer to those previous
convictions in writing.

GOODS CAN CEASE TO BE STOLEN SUCH THAT YOU CANNOT HANDLE

THEM - the goods cease to be legally stolen. In Section 322 (2) (b) after
the goods are restored to the owner or any other person who has lawful
custody, they cease to be stolen.
After any person entitled to the restoration of those goods or anyone
claiming through him ceases to have any right to restitution in respect to
the theft. That is anyone who is entitled to restoration of those goods or
claiming a right to those goods, he ceases to have that right of restoration
of goods stolen.

You can cease to have a right to restoration by way of compensation. For

example once your car is stolen and the insurance pays you, if it is
recovered it no longer belongs to you, you have not right to restoration.

After the right to the property has legally passed to the thief, or if the
goods have been intercepted by the law. The goods remain stolen, the
theft continues and cannot stop even if the goods have been recovered and
restored to the owner the theft remains.

R V. Villensky (1892) 2 QB 597 in this case 2 people a and b were

convicted of feloniously receiving stolen goods. It was the property of CP &
CO. the goods were in a parcel delivered to the company for carriage to
Holloway. When the goods reached the company’s offices it was off loaded
from the collecting van. The thief was an employee of the courier
company. He removed the goods from one platform to another platform.
The platform for which he removed it was the one for Holloway where the
goods were destined and addressed the package to the defendants a and b
who lived to Petersfield. While he was shifting it from one platform to
another he was seen by a fellow employee who reported him to the
superintendent who went and inspected the parcel and confirmed that it
was stolen and …

CP & Co. had already resumed possession of the stolen property before it
was received by a and b. the property was no longer stolen property.

Regina V. Schmidt (1866) LR 1 CCR 15

Some luggage had been left by 2 passengers at a railway station which

belonged to a certain company. It was stolen by some thieves. One of
them later took a bundle of those stolen goods to another railway station
belonging to the same Railway Company. He took them to be forwarded to
Mr. Schmidt at Brighton but by the time the goods reached Brighton had
been discovered and using correspondence between the Railway police and
police in Brighton. He opened the parcel and identified the goods as part
of the stolen goods and put it back and gave it to the porter to take it
where it had been sent by the thief to Mr. Schmidt. The porter took it to
Schmidt. The thieves were convicted of theft and Schmidt was convicted
of theft and Schmidt was convicted of feloniously receiving goods while
knowing them to be stolen. The charge referred to the goods as the
property of the Railway Company. The conviction was quashed because
the goods had been received by Schmidt from a policeman employed by
the railway company and after the policeman had discovered the stolen
goods, they had ceased to be stolen. The delivery to Schmidt was by the
owners and not by the thief.

Regina V. Dolan [1855] 6 Cox CC 449 The goods in these case were stolen
and the owner found them in the pockets of the thief. The owner sent for
a policeman who came, took the goods from the pockets of the thief but
later returned the goods to the thief who was sent by the owner of the
goods to go and sell them where he had sold others. The thief went to the
shop of the of the Defendant in this case and sold the goods to the
Defendant and then he gave the money to the owner. Dolan was charged
with handling stolen property. The court said that he was not guilty of
receiving stolen property. The reason being that the owner had resumed
possession and it was the owner who actually sold the goods to Dolan.

Lord Justice Campbell who was a CJ said that if at any period of the
history of a chattel which has been stolen and been restored to the owner
who had thereafter long had it in his possession the same chattel should
be received from the owner by a person who knew that it had been stolen I
think that such a receiving could never be said to be stolen. It ceases to
be stolen.

Marjaria & Republic [1972] EA 10

Authority that a thief cannot be convicted as a receiver of the same goods.

In Kipsaina & R [1975] EA 252 Authority that charge of handling stolen

property if a reasonable explanation which might be true is given.