R v Reah

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date28 June 1968
Judgment citation (vLex)[1968] EWCA Crim J0628-1
Docket NumberNo. 1741/68
CourtCourt of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Date28 June 1968

[1968] EWCA Crim J0628-1



Royal Courts of Justice


The Lord Chief Justice of England (Lord Parker)

Mr. Justice James


Mr. Justice Bridge

No. 1741/68

Alan Reah

MR. H. TORRENCE appeared as Counsel for the Appellant.

MR. J. ALLIOTT appeared as Counsel for the Crown.


Mr. Justice James will give the Judgment of the Court.


The Appellant Alan Reah was convicted on the 21st February at East Sussex Quarter Sessions of the offence of receiving stolen property. He appeals on a point of law against that conviction. There is before the Court an application for leave to appeal against conviction on other grounds, which application was refused by the single Judge. Those matters have not been pursued in this Court by Mr. Torrence; in fact the period of time allowed to Mr. Reah to make up his mind whether he wishes to renew his application to the full Court in respect of those matters has not yet expired, but for the purposes of this judgment the Court deals with the appeal.


The point of law raised can be stated shortly, that the Deputy Chairman was wrong in law in his ruling that the provisions of Section 4 sub-section (7) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 were retroactive in operation, and in consequence of that ruling the Deputy Chairman was in error in ruling that there was no case to answer at the end of the prosecution case, and also in error in his direction to the Jury as to the law applicable to the charge of receiving stolen property in this case.


Section 4 sub-section (7) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 reads: "For the purposes of Section 33 of the Larceny Act 1916 and of any other enactment relating to receivers or receiving a person shall be treated as receiving property if he dishonestly undertakes or assists in its retention, removal, disposal or realisation by or for the benefit of another person or if he arranges so to do".


A further relevant provision of that Act is Section 12 sub-section (1), by which it is provided: "This Part of this Act, except in so far as it enlarges the powers of the Parliament of Northern Ireland, shall not come into force until the 1st January, 1968" - "This Part of this Act" is Part I which includes Section 7 sub-section (4). Section 12 continues: "and, in so far as it affects any matter of procedure or evidence or the jurisdiction or powers of any court in relation to offences, it shall have effect in relation to proceedings on indictment for an offence (except as provided by the following subsections) if, but only if, the person charged with the offence is arraigned on or after that day".


Before stating very briefly the facts of the matter, for the facts are not really in dispute, it is convenient to refer to certain vital dates. On the 21st July, 1967 the Criminal Law Act was enacted; on the 25th November, 1967 the events took place upon which the Prosecution rely as constituting the offence of receiving by the Appellant; on the 1st January, 1968 Section 4 sub-section (7) came into force by reason of the provisions of Section 12 sub-section (1); on the 25th January, 1968 the Appellant was committed by the Justices to stand his trial at Quarter Sessions, and on...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Att Gen v Youth Court
    • Cayman Islands
    • Grand Court (Cayman Islands)
    • 26 July 1996
    ...Gen. v. S (A Juvenile), 1994–95 CILR 109. (2) -R. v. Fisher, [1969] 1 W.L.R. 8; (1968), 112 Sol. Jo. 905, followed. (3) -R. v. Reah, [1968] 1 W.L.R. 1508; [1968] 3 All E.R. 269; (1968), 112 Sol. Jo. 559, followed. (4) -R. v. Whittaker, 1986–87 CILR 189. (5) -Yew Bon Tew v. Kenderaan Bas Mar......
  • Hamilton v Hamilton
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 9 February 1982
    ...Anne Hamilton Plaintiff and Charles Robert Francis Hamilton and Frank Dunne Defendants Cases mentioned in this report:— 1 R. v. Reah [1968] 1 W.L.R. 1508. 2 Barber v. Pigden [1967] 1 Q.B. 664. 3 Hickson v. Darlow (1883) 23 Ch.D. 690. 4 Athlumney, In re, ex p. Wilson [1898] 2 Q.B. 547. 5 Nat......
  • Momcilovic v The Queen
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • 8 September 2011
    ...of Canada, 5th ed (2007), vol 1 at 491–496. 420 Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd v Wardley (1980) 142 CLR 237 at 280. 421 P v P (1994) 181 CLR 583 at 602–603; [1994] HCA 20; Native Title Act Case (1995) 183 CLR 373 at 466; Mining Act Case (1999) 196 CLR 392 at 415–416 [55]......
  • Commissioner of Police v Woods (Bursel)
    • Bahamas
    • Court of Appeal (Bahamas)
    • Invalid date
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT