R v Taylor
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1958 |
| Date | 01 January 1958 |
| Court | Court of Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) |
Guilty knowledge supervening on innocent receiving -Judge's charge - Jury adequately instructed to convict only if satisfied of guilty knowledge at time of receipt of goods - Suggested once only to jury that they could convict if satisfied that "while it was in his possession he had guilty knowledge" - Whether such suggestion sufficient to amount to a misdirection - Explanation of his possession of the goods given by the accuse - Jury directed that they should convict if satisfied that such explanation was a fabrication - Whether such direction amounted to misdirection.
Common law misdemeanour -Attempted rape - Lawfulness of sentence in excess of two years imprisonment - Implied repeal by statute - Offences against the Person Act, 1861 (24 25 Vict., c. 100), s. 38.
On a charge of receiving a motor oar well knowing it to be stolen, the trial Judge at one point in his summing up said the jury were entitled to convict if they were satisfied that "while it was in his possession he had guilty knowledge."He had made it plain more than once earlier in his charge that the guilty knowledge essential to ground a conviction must have existed at the time that the car was actually received by the accused. Held by the Court of Criminal Appeal that, as in the light of the charge as a whole, the phrase could not reasonably convey to the jury that it was sufficient for the prosecution to prove that the accused became aware that the car had been stolen after he had first received it honestly, the conviction should not be quashed for misdirection. R. v. TennetUNK [1939] 1 All E.R. 86 distinguished. The trial Judge also told the jury that they should convict if they were satisfied that the explanation given by the accused of his possession of the stolen car was a fabrication. Held that, in a case of receiving stolen goods, a direction that the jury should convict if they were satisfied that the explanation given by the accused of how the good came into his possession was a fabrication could not convey to the jury that the burden of proof had shifted in any degree from the prosecution and is a proper direction. R. v. SchamaUNK 11 Cr. App. R. 45 and The People (Attorney General) v. Berber and LeveyIR [1944] I.R. 405 distinguished.
Though a common law misdemeanour for which no specific punishment is prescribed is punishable at the discretion of the Court, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial