R v Assheton

Case [2002] SASC 194

R  v  ASSHETON
[2002] SASC 194

Court of Criminal Appeal:  Doyle CJ, Perry and Lander JJ

  1. DOYLE CJ:           Mr Assheton was convicted on one count of receiving property knowing it to have been stolen, after a trial before a jury.

  2. The grounds argued on appeal are that the Judge erred in ruling at the close of the prosecution case that there was a case to answer, and that the guilty verdict is inconsistent with verdicts of not guilty returned on other counts on the Information.

    Facts

  3. On 11 October 1999 the police entered a shed at an Adelaide address.  The prosecution case was that the shed was rented from another person by Mr Mather from 30 September 1999 at a rental of $650 per month.

  4. In the shed were some motor vehicles that had been stolen, numerous motor vehicle parts, a Commodore motorcar that belonged to Mr Assheton, and a Ford Falcon station wagon.  The prosecution case was that Mr Assheton had bought the Ford Falcon about two days before.

  5. The evidence about what was found in the shed suggested quite strongly that the shed was being used to break up or to alter and disguise stolen motorcars, and to store and handle stolen parts from motorcars.

  6. A number of men were in the shed.  Mr Mather was one of them.  Mr Assheton was asleep in the red Commodore.  There was no dispute that it was his car.

  7. Mr Assheton was jointly charged with Mr Mather on five counts of receiving.  The Judge ordered that the two men be tried separately.

  8. Mr Assheton was tried on five counts.  Count 1 related to three motorcars and personal property stolen from Marion Daewoo between 1 and 3 October 1999.  These vehicles were not in the shed.  Two were found in streets nearby, and one at the back of a home not far away. They had been stripped.  A lot of items in the shed came from them.  Count 2 related to a Toyota Land Cruiser that was in the shed.  It had been stolen some time during the first half of 1999.  There was no evidence about its whereabouts between it being stolen and being found in the shed.  It had been cut up.  Count 3, the only count on which the jury found Mr Assheton guilty, related to a blue Ford utility that was in the shed.  It was stolen between 9 October and 10 October, only 24 hours before the police arrived.  Quite a lot of work had already been done on the Ford utility.  Count 4 related to a Troop Carrier also found in the shed.  It was stolen on 8 August 1999.  It was in the process of being cut down.  Count 5 related to fuel cards and service books and other items stolen from a car at Marion Daewoo or from the premises there.  These items were found in the back of the Ford utility the subject of count 3.

  9. Only Mr Mather and Mr Assheton were…

Continue reading R v Assheton

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Assheton [2002] SASC 194
Case
[2002] SASC 194
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Assheton, the appellant was convicted of receiving stolen property, specifically a Ford Falcon utility, and appealed against the conviction. The appellant was jointly charged with another individual on multiple counts of receiving stolen property. The appellant was acquitted on four counts but found guilty on the fifth count, relating to the receipt of a stolen Ford Falcon utility. The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in ruling that there was a case to answer and that the guilty verdict was inconsistent with the not guilty verdicts on the other counts. The case hinged on whether the appellant was guilty of receiving stolen property or if there was insufficient evidence to prove any involvement in the crime.

The primary legal issue was whether the trial judge erred in finding that there was a case to answer. The appellant contended that the evidence did not exclude the reasonable possibility that the appellant had stolen the property, and thus, he should have been acquitted. The court had to determine whether the evidence was consistent with the appellant being either the thief or a receiver of stolen property and whether the charge of receiving should be proved beyond any reasonable doubt.

The court held that it was open to the jury to conclude that the appellant was guilty of receiving stolen property. The evidence showed that the appellant and the co-accused were jointly involved in receiving stolen vehicles, stripping them, and dealing with the parts. The appellant's involvement in the joint enterprise with the co-accused was rejected, but the evidence was sufficient to prove that the appellant received the stolen Ford Falcon utility. The court concluded that the trial judge's direction to the jury was clear and firm, and there was no reason to believe that the jury misunderstood the law. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal and uphold the conviction of the appellant for receiving stolen property. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to prove the appellant's guilt beyond any reasonable doubt, and the trial judge's direction to the jury was clear and firm. The appellant's argument that the evidence was consistent with him being either the thief or a receiver of stolen property was rejected, and the conviction was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

The grounds argued on appeal are that the Judge erred in ruling at the close of the prosecution case that there was a case to answer, and that the guilty verdict is inconsistent with verdicts of not guilty returned on other counts on the Information.Facts On 11 October 1999 the police entered a shed at an Adelaide address. The prosecution case was that the shed was rented from another person by Mr Mather from 30 September 1999 at a rental of $650 per month. In the shed were some motor vehicles that had been stolen, numerous motor vehicle parts, a Commodore motorcar that belonged to Mr Assheton, and a Ford Falcon station wagon. The prosecution case was that Mr Assheton had bought the Ford Falcon about two days before. The evidence about what was found in the shed suggested quite strongly that the shed was being used to break up or to alter and disguise stolen motorcars, and to store and handle stolen parts from motorcars. A number of men were in the shed. Mr Mather was one of them. Mr Assheton was asleep in the red Commodore. There was no dispute that it was his car. Mr Assheton was jointly charged with Mr Mather on five counts of receiving. The Judge ordered that the two men be tried separately. Mr Assheton was tried on five counts. Count 1 related to three motorcars and personal property stolen from Marion Daewoo between 1 and 3 October 1999. These vehicles were not in the shed. Two were found in streets nearby, and one at the back of a home not far away. They had been stripped. A lot of items in the shed came from them. Count 2 related to a Toyota Land Cruiser that was in the shed. It had been stolen some time during the first half of 1999. There was no evidence about its whereabouts between it being stolen and being found in the shed. It had been cut up. Count 3, the only count on which the jury found Mr Assheton guilty, related to a blue Ford utility that was in the shed. It was stolen between 9 October and 10 October, only 24 hours before the police arrived. Quite a lot of work had already been done on the Ford utility. Count 4 related to a Troop Carrier also found in the shed. It was stolen on 8 August 1999. It was in the process of being cut down. Count 5 related to fuel cards and service books and other items stolen from a car at Marion Daewoo or from the premises there. These items were found in the back of the Ford utility the subject of count 3. Only Mr Mather and Mr Assheton were charged on the Information. They were not charged with stealing as an alternative, but only with receiving. The prosecution case was that Mr Mather and Mr Assheton were jointly involved in a scheme or enterprise of receiving stolen motorcars and dealing with them. The prosecution case was that although it could not prove the receipt of stolen goods, they had been received by Mr Mather and Mr Assheton jointly at various times. The prosecution case was that although Mr Mather had rented the shed, the two men were jointly in control of the stolen contents. The Judge directed the jury that the logic of the prosecution case was that Mr Assheton was guilty of all counts or none, but the Judge pointed out that the jury must consider each count separately, and that the jury were not bound by this approach of the prosecution.Ground 1. The submission of no case to answer.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

PERRY J (dissent)
As well, it was open to the jury to conclude that Mr Assheton was guilty of receiving. Once his involvement in the joint enterprise with Mr Mather was rejected, the case for any involvement in larceny became very thin. There was simply no link to the other vehicles and parts in the shed. The Judge gave the jury a clear and firm direction that before finding Mr Assheton guilty of receiving, they had to exclude as a reasonable possibility the conclusion that he stole the property. There is no reason to fear that the jury misunderstood what the law required for a verdict of guilty.Conclusions For those reasons I would dismiss the appeal. The relevant facts are set out in the judgment of Doyle CJ. The information alleged five counts of receiving. The only count upon which the jury found the appellant guilty was count 3. This count alleged that the appellant, together with the co-accused, Mr Mather (who was tried separately):“... between the 9 October 1999 and 11 October 1999 at Windsor Gardens or other places, received one motor vehicle, namely a Ford Falcon ute of the value of about $8,000, the property of Michael Richard Williams, knowing it to have been stolen.” The case as it was put by the prosecution to the jury was that the appellant and Mr Mather were involved in a joint enterprise of receiving stolen vehicles, stripping them and dealing with the parts. The police raid on the shed in which the vehicle the subject of that count was found, together with other items which were the subject of other counts, took place on 11 October 1999. Both Mr Mather and the appellant were in the shed at the time of the police raid. The appellant was seated inside another vehicle, a red Commodore. The Ford Falcon utility had been stolen from an address at North Adelaide overnight, that is, between 9 and 10 October 1999, about a day before the police raid. The evidence established that some parts had been removed from the stolen utility and placed in the boot of the red Commodore. A bull-bar which had been removed from the stolen utility had been attached to a Ford Falcon station wagon alleged to belong to the appellant. There were other items found in the back of the stolen utility which had been removed from other vehicles the subject of other counts.The Submission of No Case to Answer This submission proceeded on the footing that having regard to the state of the evidence at the conclusion of the Crown case, inferences that the appellant had been guilty either of receiving or larceny ranked equally. As the appellant had been charged with receiving only, in those circumstances, there was no case fit to go to the jury. It has long been accepted that if the evidence is consistent with the accused being either the thief or a receiver of stolen property, and he is charged with only one of those offences, he or she must be acquitted. See, for example, the dictum of the Court of Criminal Appeal[1] in Dawson:[2]“... where the accused is charged with one only of the two offences, larceny or receiving as the case may be, it seems to us that the charge must be proved as it is laid. The jury are not at liberty to return a verdict of guilty unless the fact is proved beyond any reasonable doubt, and it is not so proved if the evidence shows no more than that accused is guilty either of the offence charged or of some other offence with which he is not charged.”[3] (emphasis added)[1] Napier CJ, Mayo and Chamberlain JJ.[2] [1964] SASR 256 at 260.[3] Citing Ghys v Crafter [1934] SASR 28 and R v Seymour (1954) 38 Cr App R 68

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by:

Full text does not contain this section.