Solicitors, for the Commonwealth, Macnamara d Sm^th for
Not Foil
tlie Crown Solicitor for the Commonwealth.
Wanz
Dist
Bromberg v
O ’Brien
(19901 101
C. A. W.
Cons FLR 270
R \ ’ Davis
1̂ 1989] 1 QdRCons
IS&'v
Lawson 33 Di>t
Schiffmann v
ACrimR 69
C L R 2 «
Discd
McCarthy V R
n9S5J WAR
Foil ...R V MuUirtS
W m
^
Foil
SASR23
MalihrtyR
[HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]
Dist
Brombertv
O'Brien
%
NTR27
A p p e l l a n t ;
PRISCILLA I'RAINER
Indorsed/Cons
R V Cortic,
U . (1990) 50
ACnmR 391
Dist
R V
R e s p o n d e n t .
THE KING
McKicnuni
^2M3] 2 QdR
ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF
NEW SOU'J'H WALES.
H. C. OF A.
Griminnl Laiv--I!cceiviiirj stolen property—Goods the proyierty of pier son unknoim—
1900. Ihrideuce—Jlecent ])OSse,ssioH— Fal.se statement by person in piosseasion.
.Syn.NEy, The prisoner ivas found by the police in possession of certain sheep, anil, on
beinn questioned, gave an untrue account of tbe way in which tliey came into lier possession. She was charged witli stealing and with receiving sheep the
Any. 20, 21.
O rirtith C..J.,
property of some person or persons unknown. Except her own statement
liartOM and
O’Connor J J .
there was no evidence as to the ownership of tlie slieep, or as to their iiavijig
been stolen. .She was convicted of receiving.
Hehl, tliat there was not sufficient evidence to support tlie conviction.
On an indictment for larceny or receiving no presumption adverse to tlie accused may be drawn from the fact that the goods alleged to liave been stolen or feloniously received were found in liis possession unless t'lere is evidence of
4 C.L.R.] OF AUSTRALIA.
127
ownership in some person other than the accused, and also evidence from which
H. C. or A.
the jury may reasonal)ly infer that the goods were taken by some person 1906.
iurito domino.
' ' ’
T r .u .n e r
Decision of the Supreme Court: Hex. v. 7Vaf«er, (1906) 6 S.R. (N.S.W .),
j'np
407, reversed.
-------
A pi>e .4L from a deci.sion of the Supreme Court of New South
Wales, upon a special case stated Vjy Fitzhardinge D.C.J., Chair man of Quarter Sessions.
The prisoner was charged at Quarter Se.ssions with stealing and also with receiving three lambs the property of a person unknown. Some young lambs had been missed from one of .several sheep runs within a few miles of the prisoner’s house, and tliough a careful search was made they were not found. Very shortly afterwards three lambs similar in age and…
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 Trainer v The King
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Trainer v The King [1906] HCA 50
Case
[1906] HCA 50
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The High Court of Australia considered the appeal of Trainer against the conviction for receiving stolen property. The property in question was alleged to be the property of a person unknown to the accused.
The central legal issue before the Court was whether the prosecution had to prove that the property was, in fact, stolen from a specific owner, or if it was sufficient to prove that the property was stolen from some person, even if that person remained unidentified. The Court also considered the relevance of a false statement made by the accused concerning their possession of the goods.
The Court held that it was not necessary for the prosecution to prove that the property was stolen from a particular owner. It was sufficient to prove that the property had been stolen from some person. The Court further clarified that a false statement made by the accused regarding their possession of the goods could be relied upon as evidence of guilty knowledge, even if the statement was not directly related to the act of receiving. The principle applied was that recent possession of stolen goods, coupled with a false explanation, could support an inference of guilty knowledge.
The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld.