Camara v Director of Public Prosecutions

Guilty knowledge or belief in receiving stolen goods may be inferred from the defendant’s conduct and from the absence of any credible explanation in the evidence. A magistrates’ reference to the defendant’s failure to call witnesses does not reverse the burden of proof where the offence has already been found proved on other evidence and that reference merely fortifies the conclusion.

The appellant appealed by way of case stated against his conviction at Milton Keynes Magistrates’ Court for receiving stolen goods. The original grounds concerned possession or control of the goods and whether the findings established the necessary mens rea. The possession issue was not pursued, and the appellant abandoned the original mens rea question. With the respondent’s consent, the appeal proceeded on the contention that the magistrates had wrongly relied on the appellant’s failure to call witnesses, thereby reversing the burden of proof.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court answered the magistrates’ question in the negative and made no order as to costs.
2. The magistrates’ reasoning comprised two related parts. First, they relied on the appellant’s presence beside the duvet cover containing the stolen goods, his brother’s signal, the circumstances in which the men had attempted to conceal the object, and the appellant’s actions in concealing knowledge of its contents. Those matters were capable of establishing that the appellant knew or believed that the goods were stolen.
3. Second, the magistrates noted that the appellant had failed to call witnesses who could have provided another explanation. That was an additional and fortifying consideration. It was not the foundation of the conviction and did not place a legal burden on the appellant to prove his innocence.
4. The magistrates were entitled to infer guilty knowledge or belief from the appellant’s actions and his evidence, particularly in the absence of a credible explanation. The conviction was therefore not shown to be wrong in law.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal by way of case stated was dismissed.
• Milton Keynes Magistrates’ Court: The appellant was convicted on 11 November 2002 of receiving stolen goods.