Defazio v Director of Public Prosecutions

For a conviction for receiving stolen goods, the prosecution must provide sufficient evidence that the property was stolen before it came into the defendant’s possession, and that the defendant knew or believed it to be stolen. A finding that property was merely lost or mislaid does not satisfy that requirement. Dishonesty may in some circumstances be established by keeping found property, but the surrounding circumstances must support that inference. Where the evidence is equally, or more, consistent with accidental loss than theft, the court cannot assume theft or infer the necessary knowledge and dishonesty.

The claimant appealed by way of case stated against his conviction by a district judge at Reading for dishonestly receiving a Barclaycard Visa. The card had gone missing from its owner’s wallet and was later found in the claimant’s bedroom. The owner had not given permission for anyone to take it, but there was no evidence that it had been deliberately taken. The claimant said that he had found it near a café, intended to hand it in, and then forgot about it. The central issues were whether the evidence established that the card was stolen and whether it justified findings that the claimant knew or believed it to be stolen and had acted dishonestly.

1. Appeal allowed. The conviction was unsafe and was quashed.
2. Receiving stolen goods presupposes that the property was stolen by the time it came into the defendant’s possession. The fact that the owner could say only that the card had gone missing did not establish that it had been stolen.
3. The evidence was insufficient to support that conclusion. The card was one of several cards kept by the owner, and its disappearance was at least as consistent with its having been dropped, left behind after use, or otherwise mislaid as with deliberate theft.
4. It was therefore impermissible to assume that the claimant knew or believed the card to be stolen when he received it. The district judge was not entitled to infer the required dishonesty merely from possession, the opportunity to hand the card in, and its placement in a drawer. The fact that the card had not been used during the period of possession further weakened the inference.
5. The court noted that a person who finds property and dishonestly decides to keep it for use might, in appropriate circumstances, be guilty of theft. That observation did not establish receiving stolen goods on the evidence in this case.
6. The district judge’s answers to both stated questions were negative. An order was made for payment of the claimant’s costs out of central funds.

1. High Court (Administrative Court) allowed the appeal by way of case stated and quashed the conviction entered by the district judge at Reading.