Handling & Possessing stolen property question

FreudianSlippers

This part has always confused me regarding s17 & s18 of the Criminal Justice (Theft And Fraud Offences) Act, 2001.

Now this is hypothetical to illustrate the point:

Say a person purchases an item, without knowledge that it is stolen. However, later they find out that it is likely the item was stolen.
They could probably, in hindsight, have been reckless as to whether it was stolen (especially if it was below market value). However, they wouldn't be guilty under s17(1) because it says "dishonestly". But could they still be guilty under s17(2)?
Regardless of guilt under s17, it would seem that they could definitely be guilty under s18. That would seem quite harsh on the person, who at the time was unaware of the stolen nature of the goods.

r14

Bear in mind recklessness is subjective (probably - don't know if they've 100% decided in Ireland)

So if the person knew there was a risk that the goods were stolen at the time that they bought them and decided to handle/possess them anyway they would be convicted of recklessly handling/possessing stolen goods.

If for some reason they didn't pick up on the circumstances and did not know that there was a risk they were stolen they will not have acted recklessly and will be aquitted (if they can convince the jury).

I don't see anything particularly unfair there.

If, as in your hypothetical, they were completely innocent at the time they bought the goods and later became aware that they were stolen then they will be guilty of an offence from the moment they realise the goods are stolen and decide to continue possessing them.

An honest person in those circumstances would bring those goods to the gardai. If they're arrested en route they can claim that they were going to the gardai and they will have a lawful excuse (per s 18).

(also just to make clear handling stolen goods is only really meant for large scale black market kinda things and I doubt you'd get snared for simply buying one bootleg dvd.)

Capt'n Midnight

r14 wrote: »

(also just to make clear handling stolen goods is only really meant for large scale black market kinda things and I doubt you'd get snared for simply buying one bootleg dvd.)

I though the whole idea behind making possessing stolen property illegal was to try to eliminate the market for stolen goods and so make theft less attractive.

IIRC if something falls off the back of a lorry it's still the property of the original owner.

FreudianSlippers

r14 wrote: »

Bear in mind recklessness is subjective (probably - don't know if they've 100% decided in Ireland)

So if the person knew there was a risk that the goods were stolen at the time that they bought them and decided to handle/possess them anyway they would be convicted of recklessly handling/possessing stolen goods.

If for some reason they didn't pick up on the circumstances and did not know that there was a risk they were stolen they will not have acted recklessly and will be aquitted (if they can convince the jury).

I don't see anything particularly unfair there.

If, as in your hypothetical, they were completely innocent at the time they bought the goods and later became aware that they were stolen then they will be guilty of an offence from the moment they realise the goods are stolen and decide to continue possessing them.

An honest person in those circumstances would bring those goods to the gardai. If they're arrested en route they can claim that they were going to the gardai and they will have a lawful excuse (per s 18).

(also just to make clear handling stolen goods is only really meant for large scale black market kinda things and I doubt you'd get snared for simply buying one bootleg dvd.)

Interesting you mention that, I was actually asking in relation to bootleg DVDs and alike.
Something I'm interested in perhaps writing about in my Intellectual Property exam (should it come up).

Thanks for the answer! Really clear in my head now!

Capt'n Midnight

Bootleg DVD is not stolen property since the piece of plastic wasn't stolen just the info on it. You have deprived the copyright holder of the chance of selling an original DVD. Then again the penalties

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2000/en/act/pub/0028/sec0140.html#partii-chapxiii-sec140 seems to me to say that it's illegal to make the copy but I can't see where it's illegal to purchase or own a copy, BUT you can't then make a copy of the copy. I must be missing something otherwise I could just buy pirated stuff.

FreudianSlippers

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Bootleg DVD is not stolen property since the piece of plastic wasn't stolen just the info on it. You have deprived the copyright holder of the chance of selling an original DVD. Then again the penalties

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2000/en/act/pub/0028/sec0140.html#partii-chapxiii-sec140 seems to me to say that it's illegal to make the copy but I can't see where it's illegal to purchase or own a copy, BUT you can't then make a copy of the copy. I must be missing something otherwise I could just buy pirated stuff.

I think the relevant section is s46(1)(d) - A person infringes the copyright in a work where he or she, without the licence of the copyright holder has in his or her posession, custody or control.

But you're right, it's probably not considered stolen property but rather copyright infringement.

Mike 1972

So if the person knew there was a risk that the goods were stolen at the time that they bought them and decided to handle/possess them anyway they would be convicted of recklessly handling/possessing stolen goods.

Surely there is a risk that any goods one buys (even for full price in a retail outlet) could be stolen. A very small risk in most cases but a risk nonetheless.

They could probably, in hindsight, have been reckless as to whether it was stolen (especially if it was below market value)

But there are all manner of legitimate reasons why someone might be selling goods "below market value" and its not always easy for a buyer (or a seller for that matter) to determine what a true "market value" actually is

partyguinness

I was recently involved in defending a circuit case similar to this recently:-

Young women gets a gift of a rather expensive ring from her boyfriend. He had acquired the ring during a burglary spree the day before...3-4 houses broked into.

She didnt know it was stolen but:-

a. She was suspicious as it looked expensive to her (ring worth €8k) and they had very little money

b. She (fatally) asked him was it stolen..he laughed it off.

c. She admitted this in her statements.

She was charged with knowingly handling stolen goods.We advised her to plead guilty as her suspicions alone was enough to come under recklessness and a jury wld have convicted her.

As she had no previous and the Gardai said she was an innocent victim (she was also drop dead gorgeous and the Detective defo wanted into her knickers...lol). She was dismissed under the Probation Act.

Incidently we advised her to elect for the Circuit Court as opposed to the District Court as she would have been convicted in the DC fairly sharply.

vrfcno7

partyguinness wrote: »

Incidently we advised her to elect for the Circuit Court as opposed to the District Court as she would have been convicted in the DC fairly sharply.

Just out of curiosity, why would the circuit court be so quick to convict her as opposed to the circuit court?

partyguinness

vrfcno7 wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, why would the circuit court be so quick to convict her as opposed to the circuit court?

Well lets just say, because of the workload in the DC, it is not as tolerant when it comes to hearing cases. It is more trigger happy with convictions (well this DC in particular) when it comes to foreign nationals..just my observation.

Better chance in the CC of being given the benefit of the doubt and being heard in less stressful environment.