Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.
Chapter
Chapter
There can be no conviction under s 23 unless the prosecution can prove that the goods have been stolen. However, where all of the other requirements of handling are satisfied (ie the only one missing is that the goods are stolen), the defendant may be convicted of attempted handling under s 1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 (cf R v Shivpuri [1987] AC 1), or the handling may amount to a fresh appropriation (and so theft) of the goods. See also Walters v Lunt [1951] 2 All ER 645, where the defendants were charged (under legislation which preceded the Theft Act 1968) with receiving stolen goods. The goods in question had been taken by a child aged seven, ie below the age of criminal responsibility. The Divisional Court held that since the person who took the goods could not be guilty of theft, the goods were not stolen goods. It followed that the defendants could not be guilty of receiving stolen goods. Lord Goddard CJ pointed out, however, that the defendants, by taking possession of the goods and keeping the goods (and thereby appropriating them), could have been charged instead with theft of those goods. AG’s Ref (No 4 of 1979) (1980) 71 Cr App R 341 The defendant had received a cheque for £288.53 from a fellow employee. The defendant’s fellow employee (that is, the thief) had obtained cheques (totalling over £800) by deception from her employer. The cheques had been paid into her bank account, along with payments from legitimate sources. The trial judge ruled that as the bank account on which the cheque for £288.53 had been drawn had received credits from a variety of sources, some legitimate and some illegitimate, it was impossible for the prosecution to prove that the payment made to the defendant was in law stolen goods. The following point of law was referred to the Court of Appeal:
DOI link for There can be no conviction under s 23 unless the prosecution can prove that the goods have been stolen. However, where all of the other requirements of handling are satisfied (ie the only one missing is that the goods are stolen), the defendant may be convicted of attempted handling under s 1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 (cf R v Shivpuri [1987] AC 1), or the handling may amount to a fresh appropriation (and so theft) of the goods. See also Walters v Lunt [1951] 2 All ER 645, where the defendants were charged (under legislation which preceded the Theft Act 1968) with receiving stolen goods. The goods in question had been taken by a child aged seven, ie below the age of criminal responsibility. The Divisional Court held that since the person who took the goods could not be guilty of theft, the goods were not stolen goods. It followed that the defendants could not be guilty of receiving stolen goods. Lord Goddard CJ pointed out, however, that the defendants, by taking possession of the goods and keeping the goods (and thereby appropriating them), could have been charged instead with theft of those goods. AG’s Ref (No 4 of 1979) (1980) 71 Cr App R 341 The defendant had received a cheque for £288.53 from a fellow employee. The defendant’s fellow employee (that is, the thief) had obtained cheques (totalling over £800) by deception from her employer. The cheques had been paid into her bank account, along with payments from legitimate sources. The trial judge ruled that as the bank account on which the cheque for £288.53 had been drawn had received credits from a variety of sources, some legitimate and some illegitimate, it was impossible for the prosecution to prove that the payment made to the defendant was in law stolen goods. The following point of law was referred to the Court of Appeal:
There can be no conviction under s 23 unless the prosecution can prove that the goods have been stolen. However, where all of the other requirements of handling are satisfied (ie the only one missing is that the goods are stolen), the defendant may be convicted of attempted handling under s 1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 (cf R v Shivpuri [1987] AC 1), or the handling may amount to a fresh appropriation (and so theft) of the goods. See also Walters v Lunt [1951] 2 All ER 645, where the defendants were charged (under legislation which preceded the Theft Act 1968) with receiving stolen goods. The goods in question had been taken by a child aged seven, ie below the age of criminal responsibility. The Divisional Court held that since the person who took the goods could not be guilty of theft, the goods were not stolen goods. It followed that the defendants could not be guilty of receiving stolen goods. Lord Goddard CJ pointed out, however, that the defendants, by taking possession of the goods and keeping the goods (and thereby appropriating them), could have been charged instead with theft of those goods. AG’s Ref (No 4 of 1979) (1980) 71 Cr App R 341 The defendant had received a cheque for £288.53 from a fellow employee. The defendant’s fellow employee (that is, the thief) had obtained cheques (totalling over £800) by deception from her employer. The cheques had been paid into her bank account, along with payments from legitimate sources. The trial judge ruled that as the bank account on which the cheque for £288.53 had been drawn had received credits from a variety of sources, some legitimate and some illegitimate, it was impossible for the prosecution to prove that the payment made to the defendant was in law stolen goods. The following point of law was referred to the Court of Appeal:
ABSTRACT
The following point of law was referred to the Court of Appeal: Where payment is made out of a fund constituted by a mixture of money amounting to stolen goods within the meaning of section 24 of the Theft Act 1968, and money not so tainted, or of a bank account similarly constituted, in such a way that the specific origin of the sum paid cannot be identified with either portion of the fund, is a jury entitled to infer that the payment represented stolen goods within the meaning of section 24(2) of the Act, from the intention of the parties that it should represent the stolen goods or a share thereof?
