R v Bull

The case of *R v Bull* concerned an appeal by the applicant, Bull, against his conviction for the offence of receiving stolen property. The prosecution alleged that Bull had received a quantity of stolen goods, knowing them to be stolen. The dispute centred on whether the prosecution had discharged its burden of proving Bull's knowledge that the goods were stolen at the time he received them. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining the appeal.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial judge had erred in law in directing the jury on the question of the applicant's knowledge. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the direction given was sufficient to ensure the jury understood the onus of proof rested on the prosecution to establish the applicant's guilty knowledge beyond reasonable doubt, and whether the direction adequately explained the circumstances from which such knowledge could be inferred.

The High Court, in allowing the appeal, held that the direction given to the jury was inadequate. The court reasoned that a mere statement that the jury could infer knowledge from the circumstances was not sufficient. It was necessary for the judge to explain that the prosecution bore the burden of proving that the accused knew the goods were stolen, and that this knowledge could not be presumed. The jury needed to be instructed that they must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused possessed this knowledge, and that the inference of knowledge could only be drawn if the circumstances were such that the accused must have known the goods were stolen, or wilfully shut his eyes to the obvious. The court emphasised that the inference of knowledge could not be based on mere suspicion or on the accused failing to make inquiries.

The High Court quashed the conviction and ordered a new trial.