Court of Criminal Appeal
| Date | 01 April 1950 |
| Published date | 01 April 1950 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201835001400205 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Court of Criminal Appeal
RECEIVING
WITH
INNOCENT
INTENTION:
SUBSEQUENT
CHANGE OF
MIND
R. v. Matthews
T
HE
short effect of
the
decision in R. v. Matthews
. (66
T.L.R.
153) is
that
if
the
accused receives stolen
property
with
an
innocent intention
the
receipt is
not
felonious
and
cannot be rendered felonious
if
he
later
changes his mind
and
decides to appropriate
it
perman-
ently.
The
appellant undoubtedly received some
property
which he knew
to
be stolen. His defence was
that
he
received
the
property
from
the
thief, knew
that
he was
the
thief,
and
knew
that
he
had
stolen
the
property,
but
that
his intention, when he received it, was to
hand
it
over
to
the
Police. Whether he wanted to give away
the
man
who
had
stolen
the
property or not,
it
was
not
necessary to
consider;
but
he said
that
he received
the
property
with
the
innocent
and
praiseworthy intention of handing
it
over
to
the
Police.
He
undoubtedly did send atelephone
message to
the
Police who were
at
that
time
anxious to
see
him
with regard to some motor-cars which
had
been
obtained
by
false pretences. When
the
Police came
and
saw
the
appellant according to
the
appointment which he
had
made, he did
not
give up
the
property to
the
Police
at
all;
that
is, he did
not
hand
it
over.
What
happened
was
that
he was
taken
off in custody in a police car to a
police station,
and
that
somehow or other, while he was in
the
police car, he managed to get
the
stolen property
out
of his pocket
and
slip
it
down behind
the
seat of
the
car
where
it
was
not
found till
the
next
day. On these facts
the
chairman of
quarter
sessions
thus
directed
the
jury:
"You have
got
to consider this. You
may
think
that
when
he telephoned to
the
Police he
may
have been intending
to
hand
over
the
stolen property. Assume
that
he did,
if
163
To continue reading
Request your trial