Merchant v The Queen

The High Court of Australia considered the appeal of Merchant against the conviction entered against him in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Merchant had been convicted of the offence of receiving stolen property, contrary to s 179 of the New South Wales Crimes Act 1900. The Crown alleged that Merchant had received a quantity of stolen goods, knowing them to be stolen.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial judge had erred in law by directing the jury that they could infer that Merchant had knowledge that the goods were stolen if they were satisfied that he had been reckless as to whether they were stolen. The Court was required to determine the precise meaning of "knowing" in the context of the offence of receiving stolen property and whether recklessness constituted sufficient knowledge for the purposes of the section.

The High Court held that the trial judge's direction to the jury was erroneous. The Court reasoned that the word "knowing" in s 179 of the Crimes Act 1900 required actual knowledge, or at least a belief on the part of the accused that the goods were stolen. Recklessness, which involves a failure to consider or inquire into the circumstances, was not sufficient to establish the requisite knowledge. The Court emphasised the distinction between knowing something and suspecting or being reckless as to its truth.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction was quashed, and a new trial was ordered in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.