Have you been charged with handling stolen goods?
Under section 88 of the Crimes Act 1958, handling stolen goods is a criminal offence punishable by up to 15 years imprisonment. The offence involves dishonestly receiving, bringing into Victoria, or assisting in the retention, removal, disposal, or realisation of stolen goods for the benefit of another person.
This offence of handling stolen goods may be committed in several ways, such as:
- Dishonestly bringing or assisting in bringing stolen goods into Victoria;
- Modifying serial numbers on goods, such as electrical items; or
- Transferring money fraudulently obtained.
A person may also be found guilty of this offence if they undertake, assist with or arrange for the retention, removal or disposal of stolen goods for the benefit of another person.
Key elements for handling stolen goods
For an accused person to be found guilty of handling stolen goods, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt the following elements:
- The accused handled goods;
- The goods were stolen goods at the time the accused handled them;
- The accused knew or believed at the time they handled them that they were stolen goods; and
- The accused’s handling of the goods was dishonest (Crimes Act 1958 s 88; R v Henderson & Warwick (2009) 22 VR 662; R v Georgiou [2009] VSCA 57).
Handle goods
The first element of the offence is that the accused “handled goods” (Crimes Act 1958 s 88(1)).
Definition of “goods”
“Goods” include money, all types of property except land, and things severed from land by stealing (Crimes Act 1958 s 71(1)).
A person “handles” goods if he or she:
“receives the goods or brings them into Victoria”
or “… undertakes or assists in bringing them into Victoria”
or “in their retention, removal, disposal or realization by or for the benefit of another person, or if he arranges to do so”
(Crimes Act 1958 s 88(1)).
Receiving goods:
Goods are “received” if they are taken into possession (R v Cottrell [1983] 1 VR 143). To establish this, the prosecution must prove that the accused had, and intended to have, custody of or control over the goods (DPP v Brooks [1974] AC 862; He Kaw Teh v R (1985) 157 CLR 523; R v Maio [1989] VR 281; R v Mateiasevici [1999] 3 VR 185). Even if a third party has actual possession of the stolen goods, the accused may still have “received” the goods if, for example, the goods are available to the accused upon their request (R v Cottrell [1983] 1 VR 143).
Possession of Stolen goods
The second element the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt is that the goods were “stolen goods” at the time the accused handled them (Crimes Act 1958 s 88(1); Mabbott v R [1990] WAR 323; R v Park (1988) 87 Cr App R 164).
Knowledge or belief
The third element requires actual knowledge or belief by the accused that goods were stolen. A suspicion that the goods were stolen is not sufficient to prove this element (R v Grainge [1974] 1 WLR 619; R v Raad [1983] 3 NSWLR 344; R v Henderson & Warwick (2009) 22 VR 662).
It is also not sufficient to prove this element if the accused should have known that the goods were stolen, or failed to make inquiries (Giorgianni v R (1985) 156 CLR 473). However, the failure of the accused to make inquiries about the circumstances may be used as evidence that he or she was aware that the goods were stolen (Giorgianni v R (1985) 156 CLR 473).
Where the prosecution cannot prove that the accused had knowledge that goods were stolen, the lesser charge of dealing with property suspected of being proceeds of crime may be laid as an alternative. This offence is liable to a maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment (Crimes Act 1958 s195).
Dishonesty
The final element is that the accused handled the goods “dishonestly” (Crimes Act 1958 s 88(1)). Dishonesty is given a special meaning at common law and means that the accused acted without any claim of legal right (R v Salvo [1980] VR 401; R v Bonollo [1981] VR 633 and R v Brow [1981] VR 783).
This general definition of dishonesty is stated in the context of theft in section 73(2) of the Crimes Act 1958, which provides that a person’s appropriation is not to be regarded as dishonest if the person believed that:
- they had a legal right to deprive the owner of the property; or
- the owner would have consented to the appropriation if they had known of it and the circumstances surrounding it; or
- the owner could be discovered taking reasonable steps.
The prosecution may bring charges for both theft and handling stolen goods as alternative charges that are tried together. In such cases, if the jury is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of either theft or handling stolen goods but cannot agree on which, they must acquit the accused of handling stolen goods and find him or her guilty of theft (Crimes Act 1958 s 88A).
Under section 88A of the Crimes Act 1958, if you have been charged with theft and handling stolen goods, both charges will be joined in the same indictment as alternative charges and tried together. This means that if you are found guilty of both offences, the court must set aside the charge of handling stolen goods and find you guilty of theft, and you will be sentenced accordingly.
Examples of handling stolen goods
If you are unsure about what it means to handle stolen goods, here are some examples:
- Buying a motorcycle from someone you knew or reasonably believed had stolen it.
- Acquiring televisions or software from a seller you suspected had stolen them, and passing them on to another person.
- Purchasing a mobile phone at a suspiciously low price from someone at a pub, leading you to believe it was stolen.
Defences to handling stolen goods
The prosecution must prove each element of the offence beyond reasonable doubt based on the facts of the case. A factual dispute could give rise to several defences, such as:
- the accused did not in fact handle stolen goods;
- the accused did not know they were in possession of stolen goods;
- the goods were not in fact stolen; or
- the accused was not acting dishonestly.
A defence may also be available if the accused was under duress when alleged to have handled the stolen goods or if the accused made an honest and reasonable mistake about the ownership or origin of the goods.
Penalties for handling stolen goods
A person found guilty of handling stolen goods is liable to a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment. Handling stolen goods is an indictable offence that carries a higher maximum penalty than the offence of theft.
In determining an appropriate sentence for someone who has handled stolen goods, the court will consider the specific circumstances of the case. The court will also consider the accused’s prior convictions, the value of the stolen goods, and the level of dishonesty involved when determining the sentence. The court may also consider the accused’s cooperation with the police, the return of stolen goods, and any remorse shown.
Where the case will be heard
Despite the high maximum penalty, the offence may be heard in the Magistrates Court if the goods alleged to have been handled are a motor vehicle or, in any other case, if the value of the goods are less than $100,000 (Criminal Procedure Act Schedule 2). If the offence is heard and determined summarily in the Magistrates’ Court, the maximum penalty that may be imposed is 2 years imprisonment.
If the stolen goods alleged to have been handled include a motor vehicle or the amount or value of the stolen goods exceeds $100,000, the matter will be heard in the County or Supreme Court of Victoria.
What to Do If You Are Charged With Handling Stolen Goods
Handling stolen goods is a serious offence that can result in severe penalties. If you believe you have handled stolen goods, or have been charged with handling stolen goods, seeking legal advice as soon as possible is essential.
Our experienced lawyers at Dribbin & Brown Criminal Lawyers can help you prepare a defence and represent you in court. We can also help you negotiate with the prosecution and potentially reduce the charges.
Contact us today – with the right legal advice, you can ensure the best possible outcome.
