Receiving Flashcards
Receiving
Section 246, Crimes Act 1961
- Receives any property stolen or obtained by any other imprisonable offence
- Knowing that property to have been stolen or so obtained, or being reckless as to whether or not the property had been stolen or obtained
What Must Be Proved
- Act of receiving
- Any property stolen, or
- Obtained by any other imprisonable offence knowing that at the time of the receiving the property that it had been stolen or obtained by any other imprisonable offence, or
- Being reckless as to whether or not the property had been stolen or so obtained
The Act of Receiving
- There must be property which has been stolen or has been obtained by an imprisonable offence
- The defendant must have received that property which requires that the receiving must be from another (you cannot receive from yourself)
- The defendant must receive that property in the knowledge that it has been stolen or illegally obtained or being reckless as to the possibility
When the Act is Complete
As soon as the offender has either exclusively or jointly with the thief or any other person, gained possession of, or control over, the property or helps in concealing or disposing of the property.
Not necessary that the receiver take personal physical custody of the property in question.
R v Cox - Possession
Possession involves two elements. The first, the physical element, is actual or potential physical custody or control. The second, the mental element, is a combination of knowledge and intention: knowledge in the sense of an awareness by the accused that the substance is in his possession and an intention to exercise possession.
Cullen v R - Possession for Receiving
Four elements of possession for receiving:
(a) awareness that the items is where it is
(b) awareness that the item has been stolen
(c) actual or potential control of the item
(d) an intention to exercise that control over the item
R v Donnelly - Legally Possible
Where stolen property has been returned to the owner or legal title to any such property has been acquired by any person, it is not an offence to subsequently receive it, even though the receiver may know that the property had previously been stolen or dishonestly obtained
Property
Real and personal property, and any estate or interest in any real and personal property, money, electricity, and any debt. Both tangible and intangible.
The offender must receive property which was stolen or obtained by an imprisonable offence.
No requirement that when received, the property be in the same condition or state as when first stolen, nor it is the whole of what was stolen.
R v Lucinsky - Property
The property received must be the property stolen or illegally obtained (or part thereof) and not some other item for which the illegally obtained property had been exchanged or which are the proceeds.
Stolen or Obtained by Any Imprisonable Offence
It is essential to a receiving charge that the prosecution prove the property in question was stolen or obtained by any other imprisonable offence, this proof may be direct or circumstantial
Conviction of The Thief
You are able to rely on the conviction of the thief or obtainer as proof of the offence relating to the property stolen or obtained, Despite this you must still prove any conduct or mental elements of receiving against the defendant.
Concept of Title
Title - A right or claim to ownership of property. When property is obtained by deception the offender gains both possession and title.
Voidable Title - Title obtained by deception. To void title the victim must bring about civil claim or advising police.
R v Kennedy - Knowing
The guilty knowledge that the thing has been stolen or dishonestly obtained must exist at the time of receiving.
Recklessness
Consciously and deliberately taking an unjustifiable risk. A deliberate decision to run the risk.
May also be inferred from wilful blindness or a deliberate abstention from making inquiries that would confirm the suspected truth.
Cameron v R - Recklessness
Recklessness is established if:
(a) the defendant recognised that here was a real possibility that: (i) his or her actions would bring about the proscribed result; and/or (ii) that the proscribed circumstances existed; and
(b) having regard to that risk those actions were unreasonable