R v Bloxham
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Diplock,Lord Scarman,Lord Bridge of Harwich,Lord Brandon of Oakbrook |
| Judgment Date | 11 February 1982 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1982] UKHL J0211-2 |
| Date | 11 February 1982 |
| Court | House of Lords |
[1982] UKHL J0211-2
House of Lords
Lord Diplock
Lord Scarman
Lord Bridge of Harwich
Lord Brandon of Oakbrook
My Lords,
I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech prepared by my noble and learned friend, Lord Bridge of Harwich. For the reasons he has given I too would allow the appeal.
My Lords,
I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech to be delivered by my noble and learned friend, Lord Bridge of Harwich. For the reasons he gives I would allow the appeal.
My Lords,
In January 1977 the appellant purchased a motor car for £1,300. He paid the seller £500 in cash and was to pay the balance when the seller produced the car's registration document, but in the event this never happened. The car had in fact been stolen. It is accepted by the Crown that the appellant did not know or believe this when he acquired the car. In December 1977 he sold the car for £200 to an unidentified third party who was prepared to take the car without any registration document.
The appellant was charged under section 22(1) of the Theft Act 1968 with handling stolen goods, the particulars of the relevant count in the indictment alleging that he "dishonestly undertook or assisted in the disposal or realisation of certain stolen goods, namely a Ford Cortina motor car registered number SJH 606M, by or for the benefit of another, namely the unknown purchaser knowing or believing the same to be stolen goods." At the trial it was submitted that the count disclosed no offence in that the disposal or realisation of the car had been for the appellant's own benefit, not for the benefit of the unknown purchaser, and that in any event the purchaser was not within the ambit of the categories of "other person" contemplated by section 22(1). The judge ruled that the purchaser derived a benefit from the transaction, in that, although he got no title, he had the use of the car; that there was no reason to give any restricted construction to the words "another person" in the subsection; that, accordingly, on the undisputed facts, the appellant had undertaken the disposal or realisation of the car for the benefit of another person within the meaning of section 22(1). In face of this ruling the appellant entered a plea of guilty, thereby, it may be noted, confessing both his guilty knowledge and his dishonesty in relation to the December transaction.
On appeal against conviction to the Court of Appeal, the court affirmed the trial judge's ruling and dismissed the appeal. The court certified the following point of law of general public importance as involved in their decision: —
"Does a bona fide purchaser for value commit an offence of dishonestly undertaking the disposal or realisation of stolen property for the benefit of another if when he sells the goods on he knows or believes them to be stolen."
The present appeal is brought by leave of your Lordships' House.
The full text of section 22(1) of the Theft Act 1968 reads: —
"A person handles stolen goods if (otherwise than in the course of the stealing) knowing or believing them to be stolen goods he dishonestly receives the goods, or dishonestly undertakes or assists in their retention, removal, disposal or realisation by or for the benefit of another person, or if he arranges to do so."
It is, I think, now well settled that this subsection creates two distinct offences, but no more than two. The first is equivalent to the old offence of receiving under section 33 of the Larceny Act 1916. The second is a new offence designed to remedy defects in the old law and can be committed in any of the various ways indicated by the words from "undertakes" to the end of the subsection. It follows that the new offence may and should be charged in a single count embodying in the particulars as much of the relevant language of the subsection, including alternatives, as may be appropriate to the circumstances of the particular case, and that such a count will not be bad for duplicity. It was so held by Geoffrey Lane J. (as he then was) in the unreported case of Reg. v. Willis and Syme in 1972 and affirmed by the Court of Appeal in Reg. v. Deakin (1972) 56 Cr. App. R. 841. So far as I am aware, this practice has been generally followed ever since.
The critical words to be construed are "undertakes … their … disposal or realisation … for the benefit of another person". Considering these words first in isolation, it seems to me that, if A sells his own goods to B, it is a somewhat strained use of language to describe this as a disposal or realisation of the goods for the benefit of B. True it is that B obtains a benefit from the transaction, but it is surely more natural to say that the disposal or realisation is for A's benefit than for B's. It is the purchase, not the sale, that is for the benefit of B. It is only when A is selling as agent for a third party C that it would be entirely natural to describe the sale as a disposal or realisation for the benefit of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Queen v Abbas Boutrab (also known as Yocef Djafari, also known as Abbas Fawwaz, also known as Brahmin Abaoui)
...or believing it to have been stolen is he guilty of the second form of handling as 28 charged? The defendant relies on R v Bloxham (1983) 1AC 109 where it was said in relation to the variants that involve the second form of the offence of handling that the offence may be committed by retent......
-
S v Sekoere
...(see Black-Clawson International Ltd v PapierwerkeWaldhof Aschaffenburg AG [1975] AC 591 (HL) ([1975] 1 All ER 810);R v Bloxham [1983] 1 AC 109 (HL) at 115 ([1982] 1 All ER 582); seealso Re Eastman Photographic Materials Co Ltd’s Application; EastmanPhotographic Materials Co v Comptroller-G......
-
DPP v Fowler
...476; [1974] 2 W.L.R. 1; [1973] 3 All E.R. 1109. R. v. Bellman [1989] A.C. 836; [1989] 2 W.L.R. 37; [1989] 1 All E.R. 22. R. v. Bloxham [1983] A.C. 109; [1982] 2 W.L.R. 392; [1982] 1 All E.R. 582. R. v. Christ (1951) 35 Cr. App. R. 76. R. v. Harris (1822) 5 Barn. & Ald. 926. R. v. Shelton (1......
-
Westinghouse Brake & Equipment (Pty) Ltd v Bilger Engineering (Pty) Ltd
...(see Black-Clawson International Ltd v Papierwerke Waldhof Aschaffenburg AG [1975] AC 591 (HL) ([1975] 1 All ER 810); R v Bloxham [1983] 1 AC 109 (HL) at 115 ([1982] 1 All ER 582); see also Re Eastman G Photographic Materials Co Ltd's Application; Eastman Photographic Materials Co v Comptro......