Perna v Police

In the case of Perna v Police, the defendant was charged with possession of stolen property after police found new kitchen appliances in a shed on premises he was permitted to use. The appeal against the conviction was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The primary legal issue was whether the defendant had sufficient control over the kitchen appliances in the shed to be considered in possession of them, given that he did not have keys and had to rely on the owners or another business to access the shed. The court had to consider the nature of the defendant's access and control over the shed and its contents, and whether this amounted to possession for the purposes of the criminal law.

The court examined the evidence and found that the defendant had been given permission to use the shed to store property, and he had indeed stored some of the stolen appliances there. The court held that the defendant had exercised sufficient control over the appliances to be considered in possession of them, despite not having keys to the shed. The court reasoned that the defendant's arrangement with the owner of the premises gave him the right to access the shed and store goods there, and his actions in storing the stolen appliances in the shed demonstrated control over them. The court found that the defendant's lack of physical control due to the need to rely on others for access did not negate his possession, as long as he had the ability to exercise control over the property when he chose to do so.

Based on this reasoning, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction for possession of stolen property was upheld. The court confirmed that the defendant's actions and the nature of his access to the shed were sufficient to establish possession for the purposes of the criminal law.