Theoretical Court Case

bigneacy

Would like thoughts on the following - hope this is not against the rules.

TL;DR - Man buys & subsequently sells items during the course of business, is charged and taken to court on suspicion of handling stolen property.

Defendant - "Joe" is in the business of buying, let's say.... Musical instruments. On Monday a customer tells Joe that their 2 tin whistles and a flute have been stolen (sentimental). Joe says ok, I'll keep and eye out for them - give me a description. The customer gives the following "the tin whistles were standard color, with a long neck and six holes, the flute was a standard colour with a long neck and eight holes".

After a busy couple of days of trade a different customer comes in on Wedneday and sells joe two tin whistles and a flute- this is not an unusual type of sale, Joe has done this very exact type of sale probably dozens of times. Joe recognises this customer from having been in on a previous occasion, when Joe had checked his ID. (I.e. He didn't seek ID on this occasion) He asked this customer who the instruments belong to (usual practice) the customer says his sister owns them, and he will have to check with her the price. Joe offers the man €30 for the instruments- knowing that he can sell them for about €55-60, thereby making a profit. The customer checks with his sister via mobile phone and says that price is ok.

So fast forward a few weeks - the Gardai appear in Joes shop. They want to know about this young man selling these instruments on this date. Joe gives them a copy of the receipt and a quick recap of the events of the day- the Gardai inform Joe that the items in question were stolen during a burglary. Joe thinks he is helping to build a case against the burglar so cooperates fully with the Gardai.

A few days later, the Gardai inform Joe that the owner of the items has made a complaint against Joe and the Gardai arrest & caution Joe on suspicion of handling stolen property. Statements are formally taken, Gardai repeatedly try to get Joe to say he was reckless in buying instruments of a young man (which he doesn't say) and not getting an ID (on that occasion)- they also inform Joe that it turns out the man was under 18 at the time, so any ID given previously would have been a fake.

Gardai say the owner has put a value of €800 on the items (which Joe paid only €30 for, and sold for €60 - brand new any reputable instrument shop would sell them for maybe €150-200 total - absolute maximum). DPP wants to pursue the case on recommendation from the Garda and Superintendant, so Joe has to go to court.

• What do you think about a case like this?
• Is Joe guilty of the crime he stands accused of?
• Do you think he has any case to answer for?
• Any other thoughts?

bigneacy

My feelings on the case are as follows, feel free to tell me what i'm missing or where I am thinking wrong -

To prove their case the DPP has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that

Irishstatutebook.ie wrote:

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.

In my opinion, they won't be intending to say that Joe knew the items were stolen, as there was no connection between Joe and the burglar other than the transaction.

They wish to prove that Joe was reckless in where the items came from - But as stated above, to the best of his ability; Joe

• a) identified who the customer was and
• b) identified to whom the items belonged

- which removes the reckless disregard clause, ?

Peregrinus

A big issue will be whether the €30 that Joe paid was absurdly cheap, or whether is was what a dealer in Joe's position would expect to pay for instruments of that condition and quality. Buying something at a price that's too good to be true without looking too closely at its provenance is commonly used to build a case of recklessness.

bigneacy

Peregrinus wrote: »

A big issue will be whether the €30 that Joe paid was absurdly cheap, or whether is was what a dealer in Joe's position would expect to pay for instruments of that condition and quality. Buying something at a price that's too good to be true without looking too closely at its provenance is commonly used to build a case of recklessness.

I see, in this case there would be set prices for certain items, and there would be a proof of similar prices paid on previous occasions.

jd80

Peregrinus wrote: »

A big issue will be whether the €30 that Joe paid was absurdly cheap, or whether is was what a dealer in Joe's position would expect to pay for instruments of that condition and quality. Buying something at a price that's too good to be true without looking too closely at its provenance is commonly used to build a case of recklessness.

This.

I saw a case once where this is all the prosecution had

The peelers were undercover at a market and had watched how a man bought a machine for a very cheap price

They argued that such a machine in such a condition would cost more.

They argued that the buyer would have known this

The defence tried to argue that as a piece was missing from th machine that it made it cheaper.

To no avail. The prosecution won.

This was a man in his 70's. However, the judge did comment that the defendant was a good man and had on this occasion 'let the standard slip' in relation to buying the machine

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

jd80

wasn't raised as a defence

Does it exist here?

Solicitor probably did not know about it, if it did

234

jd80 wrote: »

wasn't raised as a defence

Does it exist here?

Solicitor probably did not know about it, if it did

It still exists here but it does not operate as a defence to a criminal charge. It just ensures that the buyer gets good title.

bigneacy

So given that the goods paid for were given the same price and treatment as all other sales - where does that leave Joe?

Would his best defence to be that the goods were paid the same as all others and therefore Joe did not know the goods were stolen? What about the reckless disregard aspect?

A quick google of Marche Ouvert seems to suggest that it was abolished in 1995? Does that mean it's use as a defence is not longer acceptable?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

SB2013

I presume this is for a Criminal Law exam. Maybe you should give them an unexpected but realistic answer.

"Joe should plead guilty and look for the case to remain in the distrcit court. He should raise any medical issues he or his family are currently experiencing. He should also provide details of how he is currently suffering financially. Definitely make a big deal of his clean record and request the Probation Act be applied, perhaps even an adult caution could be arranged."

Anyway, the real issue here is his recklessness. He had prior knowledge of the exact same items being stolen. His experience should have let him know he was seriously underpaying for the items. he should have taken more steps to confirm the man had a legitimate ownership or right to sell the items.

Maybe also look at the evidence gathered before the arrest as it may not be admissable given that it was not provided under caution and normal practices for obtaining it were not followed due to his consent, consent given in the udnerstanding he was not a suspect. Should the Gardaí have treated him as a suspect from the start?

hullaballoo

SB2013 wrote: »

I presume this is for a Criminal Law exam. Maybe you should give them an unexpected but realistic answer.

"Joe should plead guilty and look for the case to remain in the distrcit court. He should raise any medical issues he or his family are currently experiencing. He should also provide details of how he is currently suffering financially. Definitely make a big deal of his clean record and request the Probation Act be applied, perhaps even an adult caution could be arranged."

Anyway, the real issue here is his recklessness. He had prior knowledge of the exact same items being stolen. His experience should have let him know he was seriously underpaying for the items. he should have taken more steps to confirm the man had a legitimate ownership or right to sell the items.

Maybe also look at the evidence gathered before the arrest as it may not be admissable given that it was not provided under caution and normal practices for obtaining it were not followed due to his consent, consent given in the udnerstanding he was not a suspect. Should the Gardaí have treated him as a suspect from the start?

I would have thought the last part is most important wrt illegally obtained evidence and whether the probative value is enough to make Joe's statements admissible?


What are the obligations on pawn brokers in verifying identity and source of goods? Any time I've used them, they have just asked for identification. There was never anything about the providence of the items (DVDs).

234

bigneacy wrote: »

A quick google of Marche Ouvert seems to suggest that it was abolished in 1995? Does that mean it's use as a defence is not longer acceptable?

It's not a defence. It has no place in criminal law.