Receiving Flashcards
Difference between S 188 and 189 Crimes Act?
188 - Receiving where stealing is SIO
189 - Receiving where stealing is MIO - very few.
Proofs 188?
1. Accused received or Disposed of or Attempted to dispose of property charged 2. The property was stolen 3. a - At time of receiving or b - At time accused disposed of, or c - At time attempted to dispose of
KNEW IT WAS STOLEN. - He Kaw Teh
Possession as per Crimes Act?
(a) has any such property in his or her custody, or
(b) knowingly has any such property in the custody of another person, or
(c) knowingly has any such property in a house, building, lodging, apartment, field, or other place, whether belonging to or occupied by himself or herself or not, and whether such property is there had or placed for his or her own use, or the use of another.
R v Wiley
For receiving to be made out, the property must be taken into possession o the defendant.
When is GIC a more appropriate offence?
When you can’t prove knowledge.
Where is property defined?
S4 Crimes Act. Broad definition
D’Andrea v Woods on Property?
Converted property can be property as defined.
Stamps were stolen and then sold, i.e converted into cash, Defendant was in possession of the cash, which is property as defined.
Cases on admissions to prove knwoeldge?
R v Guidice - Any element may be proven by voluntary and unequivocal (leaving no doubt) admission by the accused.
Case on belief?
R v Julal Raad
Knowing something is stolen can be shown through a ‘belief’ that it was stolen.
R v Matthews?
Accused stated he received stolen property for purpose of handing it to Police. Found not guilty receiving.
Case on knowledge being a subjective test only?
R v Parker - It is the guilty knowledge of the accused, not what a hypothetical reasonable man would have concluded.
Is wilfully blind a defence to receiving? Case?
R v Schipanski - No room for wilful blindness as a defence, as it may indicate an objective test, when the test is subjective.
Doctrine of recent possession?
- When a person is proven to have, or have had, possession of property
- which can be shown by evidence to have been stolen, and the possession is recent to the time of theft,
- Defenant fails to proffer a credible explaination for possession,
- Jury can draw conclusion person is thief or receiver.
Does the defendant need to be found in possession of the goods?
No, R v Cross - Sufficient to show accused had possession at the relevant time.
What does recent mean? Case?
R v Marcus
Recent in relation to the larceny.
Is the Doctrine a presumption? Case?
R v Bellamy - Not a presumption of guilt, nor does the onus shift to the defence.
Ghys v Crafter on ‘recent’?
Stolen type writer.
Defendant claimed he had it for a time, which turned out to be before the item was stolen. This was enough to prove recency.
R v Medcalf on recency?
Recency is to be determined by reference to the nature of the goods.
Goods that are unique and hard to dispose of for instance, may invoke the Doctrine for a far longer period than a common item.
What must happen if the only evidence for prosecution is recent possession? Case?
R v Zreika. Magistrate must be satisfied BRD the defendants version is false before convicting.
Case on defendant failing to give a credible explanation?
R v Bruce. Failure to give credible explanation may be evidence of guilt.
Does Doctrin of recent possession apply to all charges that involve a larceny? Case?
R v Loughlin
Yes.
Can be found guilty of receiving if found guilty of stealing? Case?
No, R v Loughlin.
189A Crimes Act?
Receiving etc goods stolen out of New South Wales
(1) Whosoever, without lawful excuse, receives or disposes of, or attempts to dispose of, or has in his or her possession, any property stolen outside the State of New South Wales, knowing the same to have been stolen, and whether or not he or she took part in the stealing of the property, shall be liable to imprisonment for ten years.
Offence occurs in NSW
s121 Crimes Act?
If on trial for Larceny, an offence involving larceny or receiving, and found guilty, but Magistrate can’t decide which of the offences they are guilty of, 121 says they can be found guilty of the lesser offence.
