Aggravated Property Offences + Receiving and Goods

in Custody

Criminal Laws, S2 2014, Class 16

Revision
1.) What are the four actus reus requirements for larceny?
2.) When will the victim be said to have possessed the goods that were stolen?
3.) What kind of an act would be sufficient to prove that the accused took the goods
away (asportation)?
4.) What are the two positive mens rea requirements for larceny?
5.) When will the accused be found to have an intention to permanently deprive the
person of the goods?
6.) What meaning is given to the requirement of fraud or dishonesty?
7.) What must the accused show to establish a defence of claim of right?

Aggravated Property Offences

More serious due to particular form of property stolen, forced used, or person in
particular position of trust

94 Robbery or stealing from the person

Whosoever:
robs or assaults with intent to rob any person, or
steals any chattel, money, or valuable security from the person of another,
shall, except where a greater punishment is provided by this Act, be liable to
imprisonment for fourteen years.

+ Constructive possession: Delk

Aggravated Robbery
95 Same in circumstances of aggravation
(1) Whosoever robs, or assaults with intent to rob, any person, or steals any chattel,
money, or valuable security, from the person of another, in circumstances of
aggravation, shall be liable to imprisonment for twenty years.
(2) In this section,
"circumstances of aggravation" means circumstances that (immediately before,
or at the time of, or immediately after the robbery, assault or larceny) involve any
one or more of the following:
(a) the alleged offender uses corporal violence on any person,
(b) the alleged offender intentionally or recklessly inflicts actual bodily harm on any
person,
(c) the alleged offender deprives any person of his or her liberty.
96 Same (robbery) with wounding
97 Robbery etc or stopping a mail, being armed or in company
98 Robbery with arms etc and wounding

Receiving Stolen Property

188 Receiving stolen property where stealing a serious indictable
offence
(1) Whosoever receives, or disposes of, or attempts to dispose of, any
property, the stealing whereof amounts to a serious indictable offence,
knowing the same to have been stolen, shall be guilty of a serious
indictable offence, and may be indicted, either as an accessory after the
fact, or for a substantive offence, and in the latter case whether the
principal offender has been previously tried or not, or is amenable to
justice or not, and in either case is liable:
(a) if the property is a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle part, or a vessel
or a vessel part, to imprisonment for 12 years, or
(b) in the case of any other property, to imprisonment for 10 years.

Requirements
1. Stolen property
2. Receiving that property
Fien
Gleed: joint
Miler and Conners: constructive possession
3. With knowledge that the property is stolen
Raad
Schipanski
Hall
Balough
Matthews

Other Issues:
1. recent possession: reasonable explanations vs right to silence
2. property of persons unknown

Receiving Goods in Custody

527C Persons unlawfully in possession of property
(1) Any person who:
(a) has any thing in his or her custody,
(b) has any thing in the custody of another person,
(c) has any thing in or on premises, whether belonging to or occupied by himself or herself
or not, or whether that thing is there for his or her own use or the use of another, or
(d) gives custody of any thing to a person who is not lawfully entitled to possession of the
thing,
which thing may be reasonably suspected of being stolen or otherwise unlawfully
obtained, is liable on conviction before the Local Court:
(a) if the thing is a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle part, or a vessel or a vessel part, to
imprisonment for 1 year, or to a fine of 10 penalty units, or both, or
(b) in the case of any other thing, to imprisonment for 6 months, or to a fine of 5
penalty units, or both.

(2) It is a sufficient defence to a prosecution for an offence under subsection (1) if the
defendant satisfies the court that he or she had no reasonable grounds for
suspecting that the thing referred to in the charge was stolen or otherwise
unlawfully obtained.

Reasonable Suspicion: Anderson

False answers, evasion and prevarication on the part of the person under suspicion
may fortify a suspicion which has arisen anyway from the circumstances of the
discovery of the thing in custody

How a level of thought which is qualified by what may be (and does not need to
reach beyond what is suspected) can be established beyond reasonable doubt is
not entirely clear. But the section exists and has survived for more than a century.

+ Chan: one of several possible explanations

Practice Problem Question

1.) Has Arnie committed larceny?

2.) Has Grace committed any criminal offences?