Tasovac v Lawson

The appellant, Tasovac, was charged with possession of property recently stolen by Lawson, which was an offence under the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic). The property in question was a Ford Falcon, which had been stolen by Lawson and subsequently found in Tasovac's possession. The trial judge directed the jury that they were entitled to infer from the possession of the car that Tasovac was guilty of the offence, unless he provided a satisfactory explanation for the possession. The jury convicted Tasovac, who appealed against the conviction on the basis that the trial judge had misdirected them by not requiring them to consider any explanation that Tasovac might offer for his possession of the car.
The court was required to determine whether the trial judge's direction to the jury was correct. The court held that the trial judge's direction was in accordance with established principles of criminal law. The court noted that where a person is found in possession of recently stolen property, it is open to the jury to infer that the possession is unlawful. However, this inference is rebuttable, and the accused may offer an explanation for their possession which, if accepted by the jury, will negative the inference. The court held that the trial judge's direction to the jury that they were entitled to infer that Tasovac's possession of the car was unlawful unless he provided a satisfactory explanation for it, was correct.
In light of the above, the court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction. The court held that the trial judge's direction to the jury was correct, and that there was no error in the trial judge's summing up to the jury. The court further held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, and that there was no miscarriage of justice. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the conviction affirmed.