Caratti v The Queen

The High Court of Australia considered the appeal of Mr Caratti against his conviction for the offence of receiving stolen property. The prosecution alleged that Mr Caratti had received a quantity of stolen gold bullion, knowing it to be stolen. The central dispute revolved around whether the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Caratti possessed the requisite knowledge that the gold was stolen at the time he received it.

The High Court was required to determine whether the trial judge had erred in law by directing the jury that they could infer Mr Caratti's knowledge from his conduct after he received the gold, even if they found that he did not have that knowledge at the precise moment of receipt. Specifically, the Court had to consider the application of the principle that a person is deemed to have knowledge of a fact if they deliberately shut their eyes to the truth or wilfully and recklessly fail to make inquiries that a reasonable person would make.

Gaudron and Kirby JJ, in their joint judgment, held that the trial judge's direction to the jury was erroneous. They reasoned that the offence of receiving stolen property requires proof that the accused had knowledge that the property was stolen at the time of receipt. While subsequent conduct could be evidence from which such knowledge could be inferred, it could not, of itself, establish knowledge at the time of receipt. The judges emphasised that the jury must be satisfied that the accused possessed the guilty knowledge at the relevant time, and that a direction which allowed for an inference of knowledge based solely on post-receipt conduct risked convicting an individual who may have acquired the property innocently and subsequently become aware of its stolen nature.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction was quashed, and a new trial was ordered.