Question RE: s17 Handling Stolen Goods

panic101

Hello everyone.

I wonder does anyone know where I could find out or research the average sentence for a particular crime.

Its in theory of course

Say a shop was buying up stocks from other shops that were closing down and inadvertantly bought stolen goods, what would happen? I am aware that even though they did not know they were iffy, they could still be charged under section 17 of the stolen goods act as they were acting "recklessly".

The person involved has a clean history and was stunned when he was told. Its up in the district court and is being dealt with summararily (spelling).

Just wondering if anyone has come across this before and if anyone recalls the results or knows where you might find the results.

Its just for research of this scenerio.

Thank you.

chops018

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2001/en/act/pub/0050/sec0017.html#sec17

Says there a person may be liable to a fine and/or up to 10 years imprisonment. But that is if you are being tried on indictment. If you are being tried summarily then the term of imprisonment won't exceed 12 months.

NoQuarter

And in theory, if this person was only reckless to the stolen goods instead of actually aware they were stolen and had no previous convictions, any penalty should be on the low side of that limit. Either way, this hypothetical man needs to hypothetically get his ass to a solicitor because it is a very serious charge!

panic101

Has anyone seen a case like this proceed?

If the guy charged had a history of going into closing down places and buying up the remnants, and genuinely didn't know anything was amiss, how would it go on? Normally, if paddy was closing his shop on friday and Johnny walked in offering to take the remmants, Johnny could get a substantial discount but would not get a receipt. What good would it be anyway if the place is closed down?

I know its an interesting scenerio, quite normal, and happens every day, but not with the ending proposed here.


It would be very interesting to know if a case like this has happened before, and the results. I'm sure that in a scenerio like this, they will have got themselves a solicitor, but they would still be very nervous as it may be found what they had done could be technically wrong.

I have read the relevant act about consequences, but there would be very unusual circumstances in this case, as outlined above.

Anyone got an opinion or an experience of this?

chops018

panic101 wrote: »

Has anyone seen a case like this proceed?

If the guy charged had a history of going into closing down places and buying up the remnants, and genuinely didn't know anything was amiss, how would it go on? Normally, if paddy was closing his shop on friday and Johnny walked in offering to take the remmants, Johnny could get a substantial discount but would not get a receipt. What good would it be anyway if the place is closed down?

I know its an interesting scenerio, quite normal, and happens every day, but not with the ending proposed here.


It would be very interesting to know if a case like this has happened before, and the results. I'm sure that in a scenerio like this, they will have got themselves a solicitor, but they would still be very nervous as it may be found what they had done could be technically wrong.

I have read the relevant act about consequences, but there would be very unusual circumstances in this case, as outlined above.

Anyone got an opinion or an experience of this?

Well if he didn't know they were stolen goods then he doesn't have the requisite mens rea and therefore should be acquitted. But as NoQuarter said above, he could have bought them recklessly, and so could still be convicted if it turns out a reasonably man would have foreseen that they were indeed stolen goods.

ResearchWill

panic101 wrote: »

Has anyone seen a case like this proceed?

If the guy charged had a history of going into closing down places and buying up the remnants, and genuinely didn't know anything was amiss, how would it go on? Normally, if paddy was closing his shop on friday and Johnny walked in offering to take the remmants, Johnny could get a substantial discount but would not get a receipt. What good would it be anyway if the place is closed down?

I know its an interesting scenerio, quite normal, and happens every day, but not with the ending proposed here.


It would be very interesting to know if a case like this has happened before, and the results. I'm sure that in a scenerio like this, they will have got themselves a solicitor, but they would still be very nervous as it may be found what they had done could be technically wrong.

I have read the relevant act about consequences, but there would be very unusual circumstances in this case, as outlined above.

Anyone got an opinion or an experience of this?

As this is a exercise in legal thinking, the question to be asked of the Jury if on indictment or the Judge alone if summary, is 1 did the person know, if the answer is no then the question is was the person reckless. Depending on the circumstances the answer may be yes or no.

First example I am walking down the street a guy says "pst want o buy an iPad very cheap no charger only €200.00" I don't know it's stolen but in the circumstances I might be considered reckless.

Second example I work in the business end of line and bankrupt clearance business, I go to a company warehouse, I see 100 boxes of brand name running shoes, usual retail say €99.00, wholesale price usually €59.00, bankrupt company sells to me for €19.00, in these circumstances I may not be guilty.

It really is a question that will turn on the unique facts of each case.

NoQuarter

ResearchWill really hit the nail on the head with a charge like this, it turns on its own facts.

The important thing is to have legal representation because good arguments are needed. There is nothing we could say here that would ease the mind of someone in this position and if we did say something to ease their mind, they would be foolish to listen to the advice from internet strangers.

That being said, I had a quick look on the legal databases and read Duff v. Dunne & DPP [2004] IEHC 151 which dealth with the "reckless" issue and in that case they mostly focussed on the price of the item and if it was sold drastically undervalue.

In your scenario, buying items from a clearance outlet, which would sell items at a drastic discount anyway, then it would be very difficult for the prosecution to say that you should have know the items were stolen.

This of course is not advice at all, its just my interpretation of the Dunne case applied to your scenario and might well be wrong.