Difference between Handling Stolen Property and Possession of Stolen Property

Kevin3

I'm at a bit of a loss as to why there is a need for both of these offences:

Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, 2001

Handling stolen property.

17.—(1) A person is guilty of handling stolen property if (otherwise than in the course of the stealing) he or she, knowing that the property was stolen or being reckless as to whether it was stolen, dishonestly—

(a) receives or arranges to receive it, or

(b) undertakes, or assists in, its retention, removal, disposal or realisation by or for the benefit of another person, or arranges to do so.

(2) Where a person—

(a) receives or arranges to receive property, or

(b) undertakes, or assists in, its retention, removal, disposal or realisation by or for the benefit of another person, or arranges to do so,

in such circumstances that it is reasonable to conclude that the person either knew that the property was stolen or was reckless as to whether it was stolen, he or she shall be taken for the purposes of this section to have so known or to have been so reckless, unless the court or the jury, as the case may be, is satisfied having regard to all the evidence that there is a reasonable doubt as to whether he or she so knew or was so reckless.

(3) A person to whom this section applies may be tried and convicted whether the principal offender has or has not been previously convicted or is or is not amenable to justice.

(4) A person guilty of handling stolen property is liable on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or both, but is not liable to a higher fine or longer term of imprisonment than that which applies to the principal offence.

Possession of stolen property.

18.—(1) A person who, without lawful authority or excuse, possesses stolen property (otherwise than in the course of the stealing), knowing that the property was stolen or being reckless as to whether it was stolen, is guilty of an offence.

(2) Where a person has in his or her possession stolen property in such circumstances (including purchase of the property at a price below its market value) that it is reasonable to conclude that the person either knew that the property was stolen or was reckless as to whether it was stolen, he or she shall be taken for the purposes of this section to have so known or to have been so reckless, unless the court or the jury, as the case may be, is satisfied having regard to all the evidence that there is a reasonable doubt as to whether he or she so knew or was so reckless.

(3) A person to whom this section applies may be tried and convicted whether the principal offender has or has not been previously convicted or is or is not amenable to justice.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or both, but is not liable to a higher fine or longer term of imprisonment than that which applies to the principal offence.

The only practical difference I can see is that handling includes the arrangement for stolen property to be received, retained, removed, disposed or its realisation by or for the benefit of another person.

My questions are:

1. Why does the offence of possession have a much lower maximum sentence of 5 years compared to handling having a maximum sentence of 10 years and
2. Why is there a need for the offence of possession of stolen property at all when handling covers it?

Kevin3

Sorry about that. Could somebody move this to the Legal Discussion Forum please

Turner

Moved to Legal Discussion.

GerardKeating

Kevin3 wrote: »

My questions are:

1. Why does the offence of possession have a much lower maximum sentence of 5 years compared to handling having a maximum sentence of 10 years and
2. Why is there a need for the offence of possession of stolen property at all when handling covers it?

A bit like the different between Dealer/Junkie, both are in possession of drugs, but the dealer is selling and possessing.

Kevin3

GerardKeating wrote: »

A bit like the different between Dealer/Junkie, both are in possession of drugs, but the dealer is selling and possessing.

I see what you mean but anyone simply in possession of stolen property is charged with the more serious offence of handling stolen property because they are included in the wording of the offence.

I think what you are saying was the intention of the legislation but maybe it was just badly worded?

krd

Kevin3 wrote: »

I'm at a bit of a loss as to why there is a need for both of these offences:

They are actually two very different things. Handling, is also known as fencing.

Or someone who handles stolen goods is a fence.

Typically what a fence does is act as act as an intermediary for burglars and other thieves. They're like a shopping market or warehouse for stolen goods.

The burglar breaks into houses and shops. Then they usually take the goods to a fence. The fence often pays them, and then distributes the goods

Someone in possession of stolen goods is something else. Someone who may have bought goods, knowing they had fallen off the back of a lorry - or at least suspected.

If someone walks into a pub and sells you a brand new, and expensive looking jacket, for ten quid. You're in possession of stolen goods.

If a man in van pulls up at your house and off loads 50 expensive jackets, and you have the intention of taking these jackets around to pubs, you're handling stolen goods.

My questions are:
Why does the offence of possession have a much lower maximum sentence of 5 years compared to handling having a maximum sentence of 10 years and

Because possession could be a once off thing. A handler or a fence is actively handling stolen goods all the time. If a fence is raided, they may have a house full of goods from different robberies.

Why is there a need for the offence of possession of stolen property at all when handling covers it?

Because you really need a separate offence for handling. Someone in possession may not be handling - they may have just bought one jacket from a guy in a pub.

Kevin3

But again, the guy that bought the one jacket has still committed the offence of handling because he received stolen property. He will still get charged with the more serious offence.

krd

Kevin3 wrote: »

But again, the guy that bought the one jacket has still committed the offence of handling because he received stolen property. He will still get charged with the more serious offence.

The charges look similar.

I think where there's a crossover is to avoid a handler arguing they were only in possession, since the handling charge covers possession too.

If the handler is caught with the goods, and they're charged with handling, they won't be able to argue only being in possession as defence.


If someone was caught with only one jacket, and they were charged with handling they could probably successfully argue they were simply in possession. Even argue they had made the purchase in good faith.

In theory, someone found in possession of single item could be charged with handling. And they might be handling. If someone was caught, with a quantity of copper piping, and they're not in the plumbing business, they are probably handling.

Victor

Are we doing your homework?

Kevin3 wrote: »

My questions are:

1. Why does the offence of possession have a much lower maximum sentence of 5 years compared to handling having a maximum sentence of 10 years and
2. Why is there a need for the offence of possession of stolen property at all when handling covers it?

Have you studied the basics of 'possession'?

NoQuarter

"Handling" for the purposes of the legislation doesnt mean having in their hands or in their possession. Handling means "dealing" do to speak. If I call my buddy and tell him that there are stolen iPods and arrange for him to get one and I never actually see or touch the iPods then I can be done for handling. That is my understanding of it.

MagicSean

Theft is the original taking of the item. Posession is the final resting place of the item. Handling is everything in between.

NoQuarter

MagicSean wrote: »

Theft is the original taking of the item. Posession is the final resting place of the item. Handling is everything in between.

But it is important to note on that point that you cant be convicted of theft AND handling/possession. Its one or the other.

Kevin3

Victor wrote: »

Are we doing your homework?Have you studied the basics of 'possession'?

I don't do homework, I'm just discussing law.

I'm just saying, as far as I can see there is no situation where a person charged with possession of stolen property couldn't be charged with handling stolen property.

ResearchWill

Kevin3 wrote: »

I don't do homework, I'm just discussing law.

I'm just saying, as far as I can see there is no situation where a person charged with possession of stolen property couldn't be charged with handling stolen property.

Yes there is, possesion requires you to actually posses the item, handling only requires an intention to have it or to have the property to hand on to another, do you may never actually posses the property.

(a) receives or arranges to receive it, or

The important words above are "or arranges to receive it." so if I agree with guy x to sell 100 laptops, and sell them to y and never even touch them I would be caught under the handling.

ScouseMouse

Dont mean to drag this off topic, but it is kind of connected.

Has anyone got any experience of cases like this.

What would happen if you had someone established, going around buying up legitimate stocks, from multiple places, from closing down and liquidation sales and accidentally purchased stolen goods.

With all the purchases "being cheap" how could you prove a case like that? and if proved, what would the typical penalties be?

Hypothetical of course!

ResearchWill

superscouse wrote: »

Dont mean to drag this off topic, but it is kind of connected.

Has anyone got any experience of cases like this.

What would happen if you had someone established, going around buying up legitimate stocks, from multiple places, from closing down and liquidation sales and accidentally purchased stolen goods.

With all the purchases "being cheap" how could you prove a case like that? and if proved, what would the typical penalties be?

Hypothetical of course!

The answer is in the Act.

in such circumstances that it is reasonable to conclude that the person either knew that the property was stolen or was reckless as to whether it was stolen, he or she shall be taken for the purposes of this section to have so known or to have been so reckless, unless the court or the jury, as the case may be, is satisfied having regard to all the evidence that there is a reasonable doubt as to whether he or she so knew or was so reckless.

So as long as the person did not know, or was not reckless in relation to the fact the stuff was stolen. It may be a question that has to go to the jury, but if such a person has evidence of buying the same items that are not stolen for the same money then he may very well not be guilty.