Stanley, R. v

For the purposes of section 76(4) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, a person obtains property if, knowing it is stolen, he collects and takes possession of it as part of the criminal conduct. He need not own it, retain it, or exercise prolonged control over it. Temporary physical possession is sufficient, save where a defence such as duress applies.

Section 84(2)(b) is directed to cases where an offender obtains an interest in property without obtaining possession of the goods themselves. An offender's ignorance of the property's true value does not prevent him from obtaining it.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Wolverhampton Crown Court to handling stolen goods and assisting in their retention. He had delivered an empty skip to industrial premises, then later collected it after others had loaded stolen manufacturing tools into it. He was paid £100 and believed that the contents were stolen scrap metal.

The Crown Court made a confiscation order of £70,274.10. The appellant challenged only whether he had obtained the tools for section 76(4) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The central issue was whether his limited role in transporting the skip amounted to obtaining the stolen property.

1. Appeal dismissed. The appellant obtained the stolen tools within section 76(4) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, so the confiscation order was properly made.
2. A participant who knowingly collects stolen property takes possession of it. It is immaterial that others organised the theft, that the participant acted on their instructions, or that possession was temporary. In the absence of duress, such conduct amounts to obtaining the goods in the ordinary and statutory sense.
3. The court applied the causative explanation in J v CPS [2005] EWCA Civ. 746: the appellant's conduct materially brought the property out of the crime. His provision of the skip and subsequent removal of its contents comfortably satisfied that approach.
4. There was no need to rely on section 84(2)(b). That provision addresses an offender who obtains an interest in property without obtaining possession of the goods. Here the appellant physically obtained the goods themselves. His ignorance of their true value did not alter that conclusion. The potentially severe financial consequences of confiscation did not affect the discrete statutory issue before the court.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeal against the confiscation order: [2007] EWCA Crim 2857.
• Crown Court at Wolverhampton: following the appellant's guilty plea, made a confiscation order of £70,274.10. No lower-court citation was stated.