(SHORT NOTE)
ENGLAND
Court of Appeal
Lord Lane C.J.
McCullough and Leonard, JJ. - Respondent
versus
Ball and another - Appellants
Criminal Division
Decided on 13th May, 1983

IMPORTANT POINT
Even when the defendants are only charged of assisting in disposing of stolen goods, and they are unable to give a reasonable explanation as to how they came to handle the recently stolen goods; it will be right to draw an adverse inference against the defendants.
Appeal dismissed.
Section 22 (i) of the Theft Act 1968 reads as follows "A person handles stolen goods if (otherwise than in the course of stealing) knowing or believing them to be stolen goods he dishonesty receives the goods, or dishonesty undertakes or assists in their retention, removal, disposal, or realisation by or for the benefit of another person, of if he arranges to do so.

Headnote:The Theft Act 1968 - Section 22(1)* - Handling of stolen goods - (See our Section 411, Indian Penal Code 1860)-One Gordon Stole 122 citizen band receivers - The appellants assisted him in disposing off 30 of those receivers-Appellants convicted for handling of goods by Crown Judge - They have appealed against conviction on the ground that the judge misdirected the jury, by asking them to infer adverse inference against the appellants in the absence of a reasonable explanation by them as to how they came to handle the stolen goods.

       Question

       Was the judge wrong in giving this direction of adverse inference to the jury? (No)

       Held the theory of adverse inference in the absence of a reasonable explanation has always been prevalent with regard to the receiving of recently stolen goods. In the view of this Court there is no reason in logic or justice since the enforcement of the 1968 Theft Act which makes it impermissible to draw this inference, when the defendant is assisting somebody else to deal with such goods. Thus the inference which may be drawn in cases of receiving under the old legislation, may now be drawn from the same facts in all cases of handling under the new legislation. In the judgment of this court the trial judge was right to direct the jury about the jury in the way that he did.

       Result

       The appeal is dismissed.