R v Marijancevic

(2001) 3 VR 611; [2001] VSCA 188

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Theft and handling
3. › Theft and handling charged in alternative
4. › Direction to jury where satisfied accused either stole or handled but unable to decide which
5. › Whether [name withheld] v R applies to statutory offences based on Theft Act
6. › R v [name withheld] applied
7. › [name withheld] v R distinguished
8. › Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), ss 74, 88
1. Criminal Law
2. › Theft and handling
3. › Handling stolen goods
4. › Element of offence
5. › Words 'otherwise than in the course of the stealing'
6. › Whether element of offence or defence
7. › Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), s 88(1)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Directions to jury
3. › Recent possession doctrine
4. › Alternative verdicts of theft and handling
5. › Proper direction where jury unable to determine which offence committed
1. Criminal Law
2. › Law reform
3. › Desirability of amendment of Theft Act provisions
4. › Statutory offence of knowingly and dishonestly being in possession of stolen property

Quick Take

Where theft and handling stolen goods are charged in the alternative under ss 74 and 88 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), the jury must be directed in accordance with R v Bruce [1988] VR 579, not Gilson v R (1991) 172 CLR 353. The Crown must prove all elements of the specific offence of which the accused is convicted; it is not sufficient that the jury are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty of one or the other. The [name withheld] direction — to convict of the less serious offence where the jury cannot choose — applies only to common law offences of larceny and receiving, not to the statutory scheme based on the Theft Act 1968.