Handling LGS 7 Flashcards
HANDLING STOLEN GOODS - 22 Theft Act 1968 (“TA68”)
A person handles stolen goods if:
- otherwise than in the course of the stealing
- knowing or believing them to be stolen goods he
- dishonestly
I. receives the goods (for oneself or another)* or
II. undertakes in their retention, removal, disposal or realisation for the benefit of another (as defined by case law), *
or
III. assists in their retention, removal, disposal or realisation by another person for the benefit of another.
or
IV. if he arranges to do (I), (II) or (III)
*** offence aimed at restricting goods being “fenced” by a middle-man, hence a maximum sentence of 14 years.
Refer to the specific type of handling rather than using the general term handling (18 possible separate ways to commit the offence within the term). You should be precise as to relevant form of handling e.g. Receiving, or retaining for another, or assisting in their retention etc.
Remember: a fence is disposing of goods for another. Other person may be receiving (depending on his mens rea). The liability of both parties must be considered where relevant.
ACTUS REUS
1) Stolen Goods (CHECK as First step)
1) Stolen goods
2) Handling
3) Otherwise than in the course of stealing
Section 22(4) TA68 STOLEN
wide meaning to ‘stolen’. Goods will be stolen if they:
(a) have been stolen contrary to s.1 TA
(b) have been obtained by blackmail or fraud
(c) consist of money dishonestly withdrawn from an account to which a wrongful credit has been made (s.24A TA68)
(d) goods obtained by act in foreign country, which was:
• a crime in that country and;
• had it been done in England would’ve been theft, fraud or blackmail.
s.34(2)(b). GOODS
Ceasing to be stolen
Goods may not remain stolen.
• Cease to be stolen if restored to the original or lawful possessor, or
• after that person or any other has ceases to have any right to restitution. (s. 24(3)).
AG’s Ref (No1) [1974]:
“Goods” are partly defined in The definition is similar to that of “property” for theft.
Whether goods have been reduced to lawful possession or custody can be determined by state of mind of person who is watching over goods.
Here, a policeman removed car part. If immobilising car then goods remained stolen.
Held: the jury should have been directed as to how the goods may have ceased to be stolen goods.
Ceasing to have any right to restitution
If D deceives P into selling him property, this is a voidable contract of sale. If P discovers the deceit but decides to ratify it because he no longer wants the goods, goods cease to be stolen and cannot be handled.
Goods and their proceeds
Included by virtue of s. 24(2) and are regarded as stolen if:
(a) they have at some time been in the hands of the thief or a handler and;
(b) they have represented the goods in the sense of being the proceeds, direct or indirect, of a sale or other realisation of original goods.
Progression of stolen goods: traced, or chain can be broken, after which point there is no handling.
2) Handling
i) RECEIVING AND ARRANGING TO RECEIVE
These are the only 2 forms of handling that do not need to be done for the benefit of another.
Receiving involves D taking possession or control of stolen goods either alone or with others. There is no requirement that D should receive the goods to keep or otherwise dispose of them, nor that he should benefit from their receipt, by making a profit or otherwise. D needs to be aware that he has possession or control of goods in order to have ‘received’ them.
Arranging = agreement reached that D will receive goods. Negotiation with the thief to buy the goods is not the complete act of arranging to receive stolen goods (although negotiations alone may be an attempt to handle stolen goods, by arranging to receive them).
Goods must be stolen at the time of agreement to receive the goods. Agreement to handle goods which will be stolen in the future is not arranging to receive stolen goods contrary to s.22 TA68. (but may be conspiracy to handle.)
Defendant commits the offence of handling by arranging to receive at the point the agreement is concluded. It does not matter if the agreement becomes impossible to execute, or he changes his mind.
ii) UNDERTAKING OR ASSISTING ‘HANDLING’ BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANOTHER
Defendant may commit handling by retention, removal, disposal or realisation of stolen goods by:
a) undertaking activity for the benefit of another person and/or
b) assisting another person in undertaking the activity
Each term has its own meaning.
• Retention – keep possession of, storing, hiding
• Removal - transporting or carrying
• Disposal - gift, destroy, melt down
• Realisation – selling or exchanging for goods of value
R v Bloxham (1982)– key case.
D initially acquired a car as bona fide purchaser for value. Later realised that it was stolen, but went on to sell it cheaply to E.
• Not Guilt of theft after purchase, nor later.
• Would be guilty of Fraud when sold on.
This decision in Bloxham over-ruled the decision in R v Deakin [1972] stated that both parties to such a transaction benefited from the sale/realisation.
Bloxham should have wide application and apply regardless of whether seller was a bona fide purchaser or not.
all original thieves will not also be handlers if sell goods for themselves. This case only dealt with realising goods, principle could provide similar exceptions for disposal, removal or retention.
Handling by omission (e.g. assisting in the retention of stolen goods).
R v Brown [1969]
stolen cigarettes being put into a wardrobe at B’s house, when police inquired B instructed them to “get lost”.
Parker, LCJ: ‘mere failure to reveal presence of [stolen goods] was incapable of amounting to assisting in the retention of the goods. The Court this principle
Court stated there could be strong inference from what was said to show that there was an assisting in the retention for the benefit of another. Something more overt may be assisting.
R v Kanwar [1982]
iii) ARRANGING TO UNDERTAKE OR ASSIST RETENTION, REMOVAL, DISPOSAL OR REALISATION OF STOLEN GOODS
D lied to the police when interviewed about the goods in her home. She said she had bought the goods, but they had been brought into the home by the husband and they were stolen goods. = assistance? Cantley J said:
“In R v Thornhill, decided in this court on 15 May 1981, and in R v Sanders, intentionally and dishonestly: no reason why requisite assistance should be restricted to physical acts. Verbal representations if made dishonestly and for the benefit of another, be handling by assisting retention within the meaning of s 22 of the Theft Act 1968. requisite assistance need not be successful.
Agreement for activities which amount to handling suffice for handling stolen goods. Includes: agreeing to negotiate the sale of stolen goods or arranging transportation of goods.
3) Otherwise than in the course of stealing
Handling can only take place when the stealing has finished.
Refers to original stealing, rather than stealing when the recipient appropriates goods dishonestly. Whether the original stealing is complete depends in part upon appropriation – AR of theft.
Appropriation: R v Pitham & Hehl, can be instantaneous, but R v Hale and R v Gregory state appropriation may be a continuing process.
R v Atakpu [1993]
leave it to common sense for to decide that appropriation can continue for so long as thief can sensibly be regarded as in the act of stealing or, ‘on the job’ “. (Atakpu in relation to Theft).
The course of stealing is wider than act of appropriation and better view seems to be that course of stealing continuing process including the original taking and carrying off.
“otherwise than in the course of the stealing” attempts to ensure that thieves are not also handlers. Handling addresses “fences”.
MENS REA
1) Dishonestly
2) Knowledge or belief that goods are stolen
R v Stagg [1978]
See Ghosh. a person would not be guilty of handling if he takes possession of stolen goods, knowing them to be stolen, but intending to give them to the police.
Subjective not objective. Defendant must know or believe. Not what reasonable man would know or believe.
a) KNOWLEDGE
R v Alt [1972] Confirmed by Brooks [1993] .
R v Pitchley
Means actual knowledge must be present at the time of receiving Crim LR 552.
If knowledge obtained later: no offence of handling. Could be a theft if dishonesty coupled with a later appropriation. Also could be handling if the person does something which amounts to assisting in the retention for the benefit of another.
Where the AR of handling is continuing, knowledge at any time will suffice -
R v McCullum [1973]
D need not know nature of stolen goods. If D knows that goods are stolen he does not need to know what the goods are. So where suitcase contained different stolen goods from those which were thought to be in the suitcase there was offence. Crim LR 852
b) BELIEF
R v Reader
R v Ismail [1977] & R v Grainge [1974]
R v Pethick [1980] and R v Bellenie [1980],
Forsyth (1997
Belief that goods were probably stolen was not belief that they were stolen no handling.
mere suspicion is not enough.
confirmed this stating that mere suspicion, no matter how strong, will not suffice for belief.
R v Hall test criticised in Forsyth (1997) as having the potential for confusion. required as a virtual certainty that the goods are stolen. Creates surprisingly high standard of proof.
The test is thus subjective, and Brooks [1993] affirms that aspect from Hall. It is a matter of what the defendant believes not what a reasonable man might believe.
