M v Director of Public Prosecutions

Evidence that a person entrusted with property would not have given or sold it away may be admissible factual evidence, even when expressed partly as an opinion by a parent. A court may infer that property was stolen from the circumstances in which the defendant obtained it. It may also infer knowledge or belief that the property was stolen from circumstances such as an unexplained purchase from a stranger, the absence of usual accessories, retention of a SIM card, a sale in the street and a substantially reduced price. The question at half-time must be decided on the prosecution evidence then available.

The claimant, aged 17, appealed by case stated from his conviction in the West London Youth Court for handling a stolen mobile phone. The district judge held that the phone was stolen and that the claimant knew or believed that it was stolen.

The prosecution relied principally on evidence from the registered owner, who had given the phone to his son for personal use. The son did not attend court. The central questions were whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that the phone was stolen and whether it supported an inference of the claimant’s knowledge or belief.

The district judge had initially refused to state a case, but that refusal was reviewed and the case was ordered to be stated.

1. The appeal was dismissed and the case stated questions were answered in the affirmative.

2. The prosecution evidence was sufficient at the half-time stage. The court had to consider the evidence as it then stood, without relying on the claimant’s later evidence. The owner’s evidence was admissible. It was factual evidence from a father about his son’s character and likely conduct, and the expression of an opinion did not make it inadmissible.

3. The district judge was entitled to accept the owner’s evidence that his son would not have given or sold the phone. The concession that the son could theoretically have given it away did not undermine the evidence as to what had in fact happened. The judge could therefore infer that the phone had been unlawfully taken before it came into the claimant’s possession.

4. The court applied the principle illustrated by R v Fuschillo (1940) 2 All ER 489, that knowledge or belief that goods are stolen may be inferred from the surrounding circumstances. The district judge had relied on the claimant’s purchase from an unknown boy, the absence of questions about provenance, the lack of a box and charger, the SIM card remaining in the phone, the seller’s clothing, the street sale and the price being about half the retail value. The SIM card was particularly significant. Those reasons were sufficient and unobjectionable.

5. The possible absence of the son from court did not alter the result. Any unfairness or abuse-of-process argument had not been raised at trial.

A reporting restriction was continued. The representation order was amended to cover the instructing solicitor’s attendance, and there was no order for costs.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): appeal by case stated dismissed; the district judge’s decision was upheld.
2. West London Youth Court: the claimant was convicted of handling stolen goods.
3. High Court (Administrative Court): the district judge’s initial refusal to state a case was reviewed and the case was ordered to be stated, as recorded at [2008] EWCA 958 Admin.