Handling Stolen Goods

Question 1

Handling Stolen Goods—Theft Act 1968, s. 22

Answer 1

• Triable either way
• 14 years’ imprisonment on indictment
• Six months’ imprisonment and/or a fine summarily

The Theft Act 1968, s. 22 states:
(1)
A person handles stolen goods if (otherwise than in the course of the stealing) knowing or believing them to be stolen goods he dishonestly receives the goods, or dishonestly undertakes or assists in their retention, removal, disposal or realisation by or for the benefit of another person, or if he arranges to do so.

Question 2

Handling Stolen Goods

Answer 2

Handling can only be committed otherwise than in the course of stealing. The ‘stealing’ referred to is the time whereby the original goods became ‘stolen’ in the first place.

If ‘goods’ are not ‘stolen goods’, there is no handling. Whether they are so stolen is a question of fact for a jury or magistrate(s). If the goods have yet to be stolen, s. 22 would not apply and the offence of conspiracy should be considered (R v Park (1988) 87 Cr App R 164).

It is sensible, before examining the activities associated with this offence, to consider what is being ‘handled’—what are ‘goods’ and ‘stolen goods’?

Question 3

Goods

Answer 3

The Theft Act 1968, s. 34(2)(b) states:

‘Goods’, except insofar as the context otherwise requires, includes money and every other description of property except land, and includes things severed from the land by stealing.

A ‘thing in action’ (see para. 3.1.6) is ‘goods’ because it falls within ‘every other description of property’.

Question 4

The Theft Act 1968, s. 24 states:

Answer 4

(1)
The provisions of this Act relating to goods which have been stolen shall apply whether the stealing occurred in England or Wales or elsewhere, and whether it occurred before or after the commencement of this Act, provided that the stealing (if not an offence under this Act) amounted to an offence where and at the time when the goods were stolen; and references to stolen goods shall be construed accordingly.p. 507
(2)
For purposes of those provisions references to stolen goods shall include, in addition to the goods originally stolen and parts of them (whether in their original state or not),—
(a)
any other goods which directly or indirectly represent or have at any time represented the stolen goods in the hands of the thief as being the proceeds of any disposal or realisation of the whole or part of the goods stolen or of goods representing the stolen goods; and
(b)
any other goods which directly or indirectly represent or have at any time represented the stolen goods in the hands of a handler of the stolen goods or any part of them as being the proceeds of any disposal or realisation of the whole or part of the stolen goods handled by him or of goods so representing them.
(3)
But no goods shall be regarded as having continued to be stolen goods after they have been restored to the person from whom they were stolen or to other lawful possession or custody, or after that person and any other person claiming through him have otherwise ceased as regards those goods to have any right to restitution in respect of the theft.
(4)
For purposes of the provisions of this Act relating to goods which have been stolen (including subsections (1) to (3) above) goods obtained in England or Wales or elsewhere either by black-mail or subject to subsection (5) below, by fraud (within the meaning of the Fraud Act 2006) shall be regarded as stolen; and ‘steal’, ‘theft’ and ‘thief’ shall be construed accordingly.
(5)
Subsection (1) above applies in relation to goods obtained by fraud as if—
(a)
the reference to the commencement of this Act were a reference to the commencement of the Fraud Act 2006, and
(b)
the reference to an offence under this Act were a reference to an offence under section 1 of that Act.

Question 5

The Theft Act 1968, s. 24A states:

Answer 5

(8)
References to stolen goods include money which is dishonestly withdrawn from an account to which a wrongful credit has been made, but only to the extent that the money derives from the credit.

Question 6

Goods Stolen Outside England and Wales

Answer 6

Under s. 24(1), a person can still be convicted of handling if the goods were stolen outside England and Wales but only if the goods were taken under circumstances which amounted to an offence in the other country.

Question 7

Proceeds of Stolen Property

Answer 7

Under s. 24(2), goods will be classed as stolen only if they are the property which was originally stolen or if they had at some time represented the proceeds of that property in the hands of the thief or a ‘handler’.

Therefore if a mobile phone is stolen by X, and sold to Y (an unsuspecting party who is neither the thief nor a ‘handler’) who then part-exchanges it for a new one at a high street retailer, the first mobile phone will be ‘stolen’ goods (the original stolen property is ‘stolen goods’) but the new mobile phone in the hands of Y will not be ‘stolen goods’. If Z (the first person buying the original stolen mobile phone) knew or believed that it was stolen, the mobile phone will be treated as stolen goods in the hands of Z.

Question 8

Stolen Goods Ceasing to be ‘Stolen’

Answer 8

Under s. 24(3), once goods have been restored to lawful possession they cease to be stolen. This situation does not cause problems when police officers recover stolen property and then wait for it to be collected by a handler (Houghton v Smith [1975] AC 476) as the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 and the common law rulings on ‘impossibility’ (see chapter 1.3) mean that a defendant could be dealt with in a variety of ways:

• Theft—collecting the property will be an ‘appropriation’.
• Handling—an arrangement to come and collect stolen goods will probably have been made while they were still ‘stolen’.
• Criminal attempt—the person collecting the goods has gone beyond merely preparing to handle them.

Question 9

What are Stolen Goods?

Answer 9

Goods gained through offences such as robbery or burglary will be ‘stolen’ as theft is an intrinsic element of both offences—such goods are ‘stolen’.

Section 24(4) states that apart from the goods described in subss. (1) to (3) (stolen goods, proceeds of goods in the hands of the thief and the ‘handler’ etc.), goods obtained by fraud and blackmail are included in the definition of ‘stolen goods’. The reference to fraud is to the general offence of fraud under s. 1 of the Fraud Act 2006 (s. 24(5)).

Section 24A(8) provides that if a wrongful credit has been made to an account and money is dishonestly withdrawn from that account (money which derives from the wrongful credit), then that money is ‘stolen goods’.

Question 10

Property Outside the Scope of s. 21 or s. 24A(8)?

Answer 10

If the property in question appears to represent the proceeds of an offence that falls outside the scope of s. 24 or s. 24A(8), it may be possible to consider charges under the ‘money laundering’ provisions.

Question 11

No Conviction Required for the ‘Origin’ Offence

Answer 11

There is no need to prove that the thief, blackmailer etc. has been convicted of the primary offence before prosecuting the alleged handler, neither is it always necessary to identify who that person was.

Question 12

Mens Rea

Answer 12

The defendant must know or believe the goods to be stolen. Turning a blind eye to the facts ‘can be capable, depending on the circumstances, of providing evidence going to prove knowledge or belief’ (Martin Edward Pace & Simon Peter Rogers v R [2014] EWCA Crim 186). Suspicion will not be enough (R v Griffiths (1974) 60 Cr App R 14).

Knowledge or belief that the goods were stolen is not enough; the goods must be handled dishonestly. Here, dishonesty will be determined as per the decision in Barlow Clowes and Royal Brunei Airlines (see para. 3.1.4).

Question 13

Actus Reus

Answer 13

The offence of handling stolen goods has many facets. Therefore to charge a defendant without specifying a particular form of handling is not bad for duplicity (R v Nicklin [1977] 1 WLR 403). However, the offence can be divided for practical purposes into two parts:

• receiving/arranging to receive stolen goods, in which case the defendant acts for his/her own benefit; and
• assisting/acting for the benefit of another person, in which case that assistance to another or benefit of another must be proved.

Question 14

Receiving

Answer 14

This form of the handling offence is committed at the point the ‘stolen goods’ are received. However, receiving does not require the physical reception of goods and can extend to exercising control over them. Things in action, such as bank credits from a stolen cheque, can be ‘received’.

‘Arranging to receive’ would cover circumstances which do not go far enough to constitute an attempt; that is, actions which are merely preparatory to the receiving of stolen goods may satisfy the elements under s. 22 even though they would not meet the criteria under the Criminal Attempts Act 1981.

Question 15

Assisting/Acting for Another’s Benefit

Answer 15

Assisting or acting for the benefit of another can be committed by misleading police officers during a search (R v Kanwar [1982] 1 WLR 845).

Disposing of the stolen goods or assisting in their disposal or realisation usually involves physically moving them or converting them into a different form (R v Forsyth [1997] 2 Cr App R 299).

If the only person ‘benefiting’ from the defendant’s actions is the defendant, this element of the offence will not be made out (R v Bloxham [1983] 1 AC 109). In Bloxham, the appellant bought and part-paid for a car which he subsequently discovered to be stolen. He then sold the car at a slight loss and was convicted of handling in respect of this sale, the allegation being that he ‘realised’ the car for the benefit of the buyer. The House of Lords reversed this decision holding that the mischief at which the Act was aimed was the actions of those who knowingly received from the thief or facilitated the disposal of stolen goods. A purchaser of goods purchased in good faith who sells the goods after discovering they have been stolen does not come within the ambit of the section, even if the transaction could be described as a disposal or realisation for the benefit of the person to whom they sell it. The phrase ‘by or for the benefit of another’ limits the reach of the law to the situation where the handler acts on another’s behalf in removing, disposing, realising or retaining goods (the possession of the stolen property would now be caught by s. 329 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (see para. 3.9.6) and the sale of the vehicle by fraud by false representation (s. 2 of the Fraud Act 2006, see para. 3.8.4). Similarly, if the only ‘other’ person to benefit is a co-accused on the same charge, the offence will not be made out (R v Gingell [2000] 1 Cr App R 88).

Question 16

The Theft Act 1968, s. 26 states:

Answer 16

(1)
If it is made to appear by information on oath before a justice of the peace that there is reasonable cause to believe that any person has in his custody or possession or on his premises any stolen goods, the justice may grant a warrant to search for and seize the same; but no warrant to search for stolen goods shall be addressed to a person other than a constable except under the authority of an enactment expressly so providing.
(2)
…
(3)
Where under this section a person is authorised to search premises for stolen goods, he may enter and search the premises accordingly, and may seize any goods he believes to be stolen goods.
(4)
…
(5)
This section is to be construed in accordance with section 24 of this Act; and in subsection (2) above the references to handling stolen goods shall include any corresponding offence committed before the commencement of this Act.

Question 17

Power to Search for Stolen Goods

Answer 17

Section 26 provides a general power to search for and seize stolen goods, whether identified in the search warrant or not, and magistrates are entitled to act on material provided by the police that gives rise to a reasonable belief that stolen goods will be found (R Cruickshank Ltd v Chief Constable of Kent Constabulary [2002] EWCA Civ 1840).

Question 18

Section 27 of the Theft Act 1968 allows for the admissibility of previous misconduct and states:

Answer 18

(3)
Where a person is being proceeded against for handling stolen goods (but not for any offence other than handling stolen goods), then at any stage of the proceedings, if evidence has been p. 510given of his having or arranging to have in his possession the goods the subject of the charge, or of his undertaking or assisting in, or arranging to undertake or assist in, their retention, removal, disposal or realisation, the following evidence shall be admissible for the purpose of proving that he knew or believed the goods to be stolen goods—
(a)
evidence that he has had in his possession, or has undertaken or assisted in the retention, removal, disposal or realisation of, stolen goods from any theft taking place not earlier than 12 months before the offence charged; and
(b)
(provided that seven days’ notice in writing has been given to him of the intention to prove the conviction) evidence that he has within the five years preceding the date of the offence charged been convicted of theft or of handling stolen goods.

Question 19

Evidence and Procedure on a Charge of Handling

Answer 19

This provision applies to all forms of handling (R v Ball [1983] 1 WLR 801) but it can only be used where handling is the only offence involved in the proceedings.

The evidence is admissible solely for the purpose of proving the defendant knew or believed the goods to be stolen goods and not any other purpose (R v Duffus (1994) 158 JP 224).

It should be noted that the provisions under s. 27(3)(a) and (b) are separate—for example, evidence could be introduced regarding a defendant’s conviction for theft three years preceding the offence charged (under s. 27(3)(b)). There is no need for the element under s. 27(3)(a) to be present as well as that theft conviction.

Question 20

Theft Act 1968, s. 27 states:

Answer 20

(4)
In any proceedings for the theft of anything in the course of transmission (whether by post or otherwise), or for handling stolen goods from such a theft, a statutory declaration made by any person that he dispatched or received or failed to receive any goods or postal packet, or that any goods or postal packet when dispatched or received by him were in a particular state or condition, shall be admissible as evidence of the facts stated in the declaration, subject to the following conditions—
(a)
a statutory declaration shall only be admissible where and to the extent to which oral evidence to the like effect would have been admissible in the proceedings; and
(b)
a statutory declaration shall only be admissible if at least seven days before the hearing or trial a copy of it has been given to the person charged, and he has not, at least three days before the hearing or trial or within such further time as the court may in special circumstances allow, given the prosecutor written notice requiring the attendance at the hearing or trial of the person making the declaration.

Question 21

Proof that Goods were Stolen

Answer 21

Section 27(4) allows for evidence to be admitted proving that goods ‘in the course of transmission’ have been stolen. They allow for a statutory declaration by the person dispatching or receiving goods or postal packets as to when and where they were dispatched and when or if they arrived and, in each case, their state or condition (e.g. if they had been opened or interfered with). The declaration will only be admissible in circumstances where an oral statement would have been admissible and if a copy has been served on the defendant at least seven days before the hearing and he/she has not, within three days of the hearing, served written notice on the prosecutor requiring the attendance of the person making the declaration.

This section is to be construed in accordance with s. 24 generally (s. 27(5)).