FACTS:-

The appellant was jointly indicated with two other men called Oates and Milne.  In the first count Oates and Milne were charged with the burglarly of a co-operative store in Conisborough where 6800 cigarettes, 168 tins of meat, 48 tins of salmon, sugar, and tea had been taken.  Both men pleaded not guilty to that count and the count was ordered to lie on the file.  The appellant, however pleaded guilty to handling the stolen goods and he made a statement to the police about it. 

In the early hours of 16^th October 1974 Oates broke into a house-shop belonging to a man in South Kirby and stole a television set, two cameras, jewellery, silver, cash, cigarettes and other items.  He pleaded guilty to that count. 

At about 7:20am on that day police officers saw the appellant driving his jaguar car from a private garage in Conisborough in company with Oates.  At about 11am the officers went to the appellant’s house and questioned him.  He denied any knowledge of the offences.  They took him to the police station.  When the officers visited the appellants’ parents’ home the next day, they found a considerable quantity of stolen goods, including television sets, cameras, a cassette recorder and so on, which were the proceeds of the second burglary along with some tinned meat which came from the first burglary. 

The appellant was told about what the officers had found and in answer to the questions from the officers, the appellant gave an account of what had happened.  It was found Oates gave the appellant the items to keep. 

The appellant pleaded guilty to the two charges.

HELD:-

Forbes J found that it was quite clear that the appellant rightly pleaded guilty to the two charges.  Forbes J stated that the appellant knew that he was being asked to transport and detain goods which were clearly stolen, and he must have known that the reason why the thieves had come to him was because he had a motor car which was suitable for transferring the goods, and having been asked to do so, he transferred and transported the goods using that motor car. 

It was noted that the appellant was 41 years old and had 11 previous convictions.  The offences mostly related to dishonesty.  The last offence of which he was convicted was one of burglary and the current two offences occurred four months after he had been paroled. 

The remaining matter for the appeal was the order relating to ‘confiscating’ the car.  The appellant argued that it was an extreme and excessive penalty and pointed out that an order for the confiscation of the car is the circumstances was an additional penalty over and above the term of imprisonment of 12 months which was imposed on the appellant.  Forbes responded in his judgment that:

“it is an additional penalty it is intended to be, as we understand the statute, an additional penalty.”

The appellant argued that there was some disparity between the sentence which the appellant received and the sentences on his co-accused. So far as Milne, the first co-accused, was concerned, the judge said when sentencing he took the view that Milne was only on the fringe of the matter and was not as deeply involved. So his sentence was 12 months’ imprisonment suspended for two years. The burglar Oates, who pleaded guilty to only one offence on the indictment, was also sentenced to a term of 12 months. But it was observed that he was sentenced to a total term of five years’ imprisonment for another burglary on another indictment. No doubt the judge was taking that into account when sentencing him for the matter.

The justices said

“we cannot understand why it should be said that any order for the confiscation of the car is not appropriate in this case. It is a case where the use of the car was an integral part of the offence. This offence could not have been committed by the appellant had it not been for the car and it is quite clear that the use of the car was the reason why the appellant was asked to commit the offence and why he did commit the offence. He committed it because he had a car which was suitable for dealing with the goods in this manner. In the view of this court that is a circumstance in which a confiscation order is entirely appropriate.”

Therefore the court found no justification for allowing the appeal and it was dismissed.

Related posts:

1. R v Mohan (John Patrick) [1976]
2. R v Miele [1976]
3. R v Lucas [1976]
4. R v Austin (Nicholas) [1996]