Burglary and theft arising from a single criminal enterprise involve separate violations of different rights and properly attract separate convictions and sentences; the burglary violates the rights of the premises owner/occupier while the theft violates the rights of the goods owner. Circumstantial evidence including the manner and timing of possession of stolen goods, the mixing of extraneous items, and the apparent readiness for disposal can support an inference beyond reasonable doubt that the possessor was a receiver rather than the thief. The questions of onus of proof regarding the 'otherwise than in the course of the stealing' element in s 88(1) of the Crimes Act 1958 and its temporal scope were expressly left open.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 9 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 9 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.