Receiving + Regulatory Offences (alternative charge)
WRITE: Receiving is defined in s433 as when any person who receives anything which has been obtained by
means of any act constituting an indictable offence, with reason to believe it to have been so obtained, is guilty
of a crime. Offence is punished in s433 (6) as 7 years imprisonment and can be increased if aggravated.
Include aggravation if applicable.
• if obtaining act was a crime s433 (3);
• if firearm or ammunition s433 (4);
• if pawnbroker/second hand dealer s433 (5).
N.B. Cannot be charged with receiving if accused stole them himself: R v Coggins.
Has [accused] committed receiving?
1. Was property obtained through a prior indictable offence?
N.B. if act not committed in Qld, then must be an indictable offence in Qld and unlawful in that place.
WRITE: [Accused] has received [property] which has been obtained by an act of [indictable offence], an
2. Did [accused] have reason to believe goods are tainted?
• Guilty knowledge must be at the time the goods received, not subsequently acquired: R v Patterson
• Unnecessary to prove detailed knowledge of the circumstances of the original taking: DPP v Nieser
WRITE: [Accused] had reason to believe [stolen item] was tainted because…[facts of case or Doctrine of
Recent Possession Applies – below].
Doctrine of Recent Possession:
N.B. Must prove that the item was actually stolen: Trainer
WRITE: The doctrine of recent possession is a law of circumstantial evidence (Connolly (No 2) Willams J) and
allows a presumption of guilty knowledge to be raised against the accused where there is unexplained
possession: Bruce. It is a question of fact for jury and can be rebutted and the onus never shifts from
1. was/wasn’t in possession (Lawlor), because [facts]
N.B. Possession can mean:
(a) Control of goods: R v Hobson
(b) Absolute control over person in possession: R v Smith
(c) Manual possession unnecessary: R v Gleed
(d) Recipient by servant with knowledge of master: R v Parr
(e) Exclusive possession unnecessary: R v Payne
(f) Mere knowledge of location of stolen property not possession: R v Orris
(g) Doctrine won’t apply when accused is charged solely on basis that he aided in concealing or disposing of
it: R v Hyde-Harris
2. there was/wasn’t a necessary degree of relationship between goods as found and goods stolen (Moodie)
because [facts] 3. and there was/wasn’t recent possession (McCaffery)
Recent not fixed, depends on nature of goods, here [facts] and as such would be a short/long period of time,
which is/isn’t satisfied on the facts.
N.B. Money/Small Goods (unmarked) = short; Objects not traded often = long
• McCaffery: Skirt and blouse in possession, 9 months after was recent.
• Wanganeen: Wheel-rim and type and a marked $100 note, 1 week after was recent.
WRITE: As such, [accused] may but not must be found to have guilty knowledge/reasonable belief due to the
doctrine of recent possession: Schama and Abramovich.
Connolly (No 2): Inferred someone in possession 2 weeks later was assistant in robbery.
Conclusion of Receiving:
WRITE: In conclusion [accused] has/hasn’t committed receiving as defined in s433 CC. Regulatory Offences (An alternative charge (not verdict) to receiving/stealing)
Unauthorised dealing with shop goods: (s5)
S5(1) Any person who, with respect to goods in a shop of value of $150 or less:
(a) consumes them without the consent, express or implied, of the person in lawfu