R v Riley - [2002] TASSC 86

[2002] TASSC 86

CITATION: R v Riley [2002] TASSC 86

PARTIES:  R
  v
  RILEY, Nathan Henry John

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  ORIGINAL
FILE NO/S:  C 251/2001
DELIVERED ON:  16 October 2002
DELIVERED AT:  Launceston
HEARING DATE/S:  15, 16 October 2002
JUDGMENT OF:  Crawford J

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law - Particular offences - Property offences - Receiving and possession of property stolen - Possession of property stolen - Possession, custody, etc - Whether driving of car transporting those in possession with the stolen property amounts to possession by the driver.
Criminal Code (Tas), s258(1).

Moors v Burke (1919) 26 CLR 265; R v Wiley (1852) Den 37, 169 ER 408; Lowe v Goodluck unreported 9/1985, referred to.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [228]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
           Crown:  M S Cox
           Accused:  T A Bain
Solicitors:
           Crown:  Director of Public Prosecutions
           Accused:  Douglas & Collins

Judgment ID Number: [2002] TASSC 86
Number of paragraphs: 14

Serial No 86/2002
File No C 251/2001

THE QUEEN v NATHAN HENRY JOHN RILEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT CRAWFORD J
(DELIVERED ORALLY) 16 October 2002

The accused is charged with the crime of receiving stolen property contrary to the Criminal Code, s258(1). The particulars in the indictment are that on 15 May 2001 he received or had in his possession stolen property, knowing it to be stolen. The crime is defined by s258(1) as being committed by "any person who, without lawful excuse, receives or has in his possession any stolen property, knowing it to be stolen property".

Evidence in the form of agreed facts was presented and the jury observed a video recorded interview between the police and the accused. In the absence of the jury I then heard argument relevant to the question whether the Crown may lead evidence under s258(3)(b) that within three years preceding his being charged with the crime, the accused was convicted of other crimes under the provisions of ch XXIII to XXVII and XXVIIIA. By subs(4)(a) such evidence is not admissible "unless ... evidence has previously been given that the stolen property in respect of which the accused is charged was found or had been in his possession". Counsel for the Crown submitted that there is evidence that the stolen property in question was found or had been in the possession of the accused. Counsel for the accused submitted to the contrary. It was agreed that I should receive the submissions and rule on them, at the same time considering whether in fact the accused has a case to answer, the Crown conceding that it will call no other evidence relevant to the question of possession.

I will summarise the evidence. The agreed facts include the following. A house in Reatta Road, Trevallyn was burgled between 7am and shortly before 12.40pm on the day in question. The house was ransacked and some of its contents were stolen. At about 12.40pm police observed a Gemini sedan being driven by the accused at Newnham. The vehicle was registered to…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Riley

Details

AGLC: R v Riley [2002] TASSC 86
Case: [2002] TASSC 86
Decision Date: 16 October 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, the case of R v Riley involved Nathan Henry John Riley, who was charged with receiving stolen property under the Criminal Code, s258(1). Riley was alleged to have received stolen property on 15 May 2001, knowing it to be stolen. The court needed to determine whether the Crown could lead evidence of Riley's prior convictions under s258(3)(b) of the Criminal Code and whether there was sufficient evidence to establish that Riley had possession of the stolen property.

The court considered the definition of possession under the Criminal Code and found that possession includes having control over property, either physically or legally. However, the court held that there was insufficient evidence to establish that Riley had control over the stolen property, as it was in the actual possession and custody of the passengers. The court found that the evidence only supported the conclusion that the property was under the control of the passengers, not Riley.

The court also examined other cases to understand the concept of possession and concluded that the evidence did not support a finding that Riley had received or possessed the stolen property. The court ultimately ruled that the Crown could not lead evidence of Riley's prior convictions and that Riley had no case to answer because there was insufficient evidence to establish his possession of the stolen property.

Orders