Hill v R

[2011] ACTCA 5

ACT Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Receiving stolen property
3. › Definition of 'stolen property'
4. › Chain of custody from original thief
5. › Whether prosecution must prove state of mind of all intermediate handlers
6. › Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 313, 314
1. Criminal Law
2. › Conviction appeal
3. › Proviso — no substantial miscarriage of justice
4. › Whether proviso applicable where prosecution failed to lead evidence on element of offence
5. › Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), s 37O
1. Appeal
2. › Criminal appeal
3. › New point on appeal
4. › Whether appeal court should consider point not raised at trial
5. › Point relating to fundamental aspect of conviction — absence of evidence for element of offence
1. Criminal Law
2. › Conviction appeal
3. › Unsafe and unsatisfactory verdict
4. › Whether matter should be remitted for new trial
5. › No evidence led on element of offence at trial

Quick Take

A conviction for receiving stolen property under ss 313 and 314 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) requires the prosecution to prove a complete chain of transfers from the original thief to the accused, including that each intermediate handler 'received' the property within the meaning of s 313(1) — that is, dishonestly and with knowledge or belief that the property was stolen. The proviso in s 37O(3) of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) cannot preserve a conviction where the prosecution failed to lead evidence on a necessary element of the offence. An appeal court should not refuse to consider an appeal ground challenging whether the necessary elements of the offence were the subject of any evidence at trial, even where the point was not raised below.