RECEIVING.

Question 1

**Receiving

Answer 1

**Receiving 
Section 246(1), Crimes Act 1961  

Every one is guilty of receiving

who 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 so obtained.

Question 2

**The “Act of Receiving”

The act of receiving requires the satisfaction of three elements:

Answer 2

**The “Act of Receiving”
The act of receiving requires the satisfaction of three elements:

· 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 that possibility.

Question 3

**R v Cox – Possession

Answer 3

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.

Question 4

**Cullen v R - Possession for receiving

Answer 4

**Cullen v R - Possession for receiving

There are four elements of possession for receiving:

(a) awareness that the item is where it is;
(b) awareness that the item has been stolen;
(c) actual or potential control of the item; and
(d) an intention to exercise that control over the item.

Question 5

*Control over property

Answer 5

*Control over property

Control over property may still be exercised by a receiver

when the property is in the possession of the receiver’s agent or servant (includes an innocent agent or party).

Again, the exercise of such control must be intentional.

Question 6

R v Donnelly - The offence must be legally possible

Answer 6

R v Donnelly - The offence must be 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.

Question 7

Voidable title

Answer 7

Voidable title:

Title obtained by deception is referred to as ‘voidable title’.

This means that the title can be avoided by the seller (complainant).

The issue is that although the title is voidable, it is still a title.

Question 8

Avoiding title

Answer 8

Avoiding title -

In order to avoid title one of the following must be completed:
• communicating directly with the deceiver
• taking all reasonable and possible steps to bring it to the deceiver’s notice, eg sending a letter or email
• advising police of the circumstances of the deception

Question 9

**Circumstantial evidence of guilty knowledge

Answer 9

The circumstances commonly relied on as evidence of guilty knowledge on the part of a receiver can often be demonstrated circumstantially, for example, by:

• possession of recently stolen property
• nature of the property, ie type, value, quantity
• purchase at a gross undervalue
• secrecy in receiving the property
• receipt of goods at an unusual place
• receipt of goods at an unusual time
• receipt of good in an unusual way
• concealment of property to avoid discovery
• removal of identifying marks or features
• steps taken to disguise property, ie removal / altering of serial numbers, painting
• lack of original packaging
· type of person goods received from
• mode of payment
• absence of receipt where receipt would usually be issued

Question 10

Doctrine of recent possession

Answer 10

Doctrine of recent possession:

The doctrine of recent possession applies to receiving as well as to theft.

It is the presumption that,

where the defendant acquired possession willingly,

the proof of possession by the defendant of property recently stolen is,

in the absence of a satisfactory explanation,

evidence to justify a belief and finding that the possessor is either the thief or receiver,

or has committed some other offence associated with the theft of the property, eg burglary or robbery.

The doctrine applies only to cases where a defendant is found in possession of property recently stolen or obtained dishonestly.