Handling Stolen Goods in UK Law

The question of who should be charged and with what offence is essentially one for the Crown Prosecution Service. Notwithstanding the obvious wider intention of the 2002 legislation it cannot be said that the conduct sought to be attributed to the claimant does not fall within section 329.

Either of those two states of mind is enough to satisfy the words of the statute. Either of those two states of mind is enough to satisfy the words of the statute. A man may be said to know that goods are stolen when he is told by someone with first hand knowledge (someone such as the thief or the burglar) that such is the case. A man may be said to know that goods are stolen when he is told by someone with first hand knowledge (someone such as the thief or the burglar) that such is the case.

Section 74 by using the words "any issue in those proceedings" does not seek to limit the word "issue" to the restricted meaning indicated above. Section 74 by using the words "any issue in those proceedings" does not seek to limit the word "issue" to the restricted meaning indicated above. Section 74 by using the words "any issue in those proceedings" does not seek to limit the word "issue" to the restricted meaning indicated above.

In all of these more serious cases, according to the other circumstances, sentences in the range of 12 months to 4 years are likely to be appropriate if the value of the goods involved is up to around £100,000.

I should say at this stage that the problem arising here is not one that arises in the context of handling offences. Handling is committed by those who know or believe that the goods are stolen. True, the offence is not committed if the goods, albeit believed stolen, in fact prove not to be.

In cases like these, a line needs to be drawn between the offences which arose from and were directly connected with the disorder (which is an aggravating feature in itself) and those which were intrinsic to the disorder (an even more aggravating feature). Rather each represents opportunistic involvement after the burglaries had occurred, and although in close proximity to the scenes of disorder, the appellants did not participate or contribute to them.

None the less, the classification of proceedings under national law is one of three relevant considerations ("the three factors") to which the ECtHR always has regard when deciding whether or not article 6(2) is engaged. The second is the essential nature of the proceedings and the third is the type and severity of the consequence that may flow from the proceedings, usually described by the ECtHR as "the penalty that the applicant risked incurring".