News1 min ago
Knowing use of stolen goods
10 Answers
My sister is in the process of divorcing her second husband and things have become difficult between the separating couple. I fear my niece's (sister's daughter from her first marriage), proposed career as a solicitor is now threatened because:
My niece is using a computer which she is fully aware was stolen by her stepfather from his workplace. Her stepfather, in an attempt to get his way in his divorce from my sister is now threatening to expose the fact that my niece is knowingly using a stolen computer. He believes this is a criminal offence and, if convicted, my niece would then be precluded from becoming a solicitor. He is fully aware that he would also be admitting to the theft of that same computer but is happy to take this risk in order to get his way in the divorce proceedings.
The research I have done on the internet in the last few days appears to confirm the stepfather's assertions (and hence my fears). I.e. it appears to be correct that if he admits the theft and my niece then is proven to have willingly accepted stolen goods, then she will have committed a criminal offence and hence could not become a practising lawyer.
Is this grave situation true? I welcome any opinion / advice on this situation.
My niece is using a computer which she is fully aware was stolen by her stepfather from his workplace. Her stepfather, in an attempt to get his way in his divorce from my sister is now threatening to expose the fact that my niece is knowingly using a stolen computer. He believes this is a criminal offence and, if convicted, my niece would then be precluded from becoming a solicitor. He is fully aware that he would also be admitting to the theft of that same computer but is happy to take this risk in order to get his way in the divorce proceedings.
The research I have done on the internet in the last few days appears to confirm the stepfather's assertions (and hence my fears). I.e. it appears to be correct that if he admits the theft and my niece then is proven to have willingly accepted stolen goods, then she will have committed a criminal offence and hence could not become a practising lawyer.
Is this grave situation true? I welcome any opinion / advice on this situation.
Answers
1 to 10 of 10
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ConcernedUnc. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Knowingly using stolen goods is not an offence. Receiving stolen goods (taking them as yours when you know they are stolen is an offence).
However, even if she received stolen goods, in fact courts (esp. juries) have a habit of seeing actions like those of the stepfather in a very poor light and 'mysteriously ignoring' his evidence. Quite right too. The law is there to serve justice, not a tool for revenge.
However, even if she received stolen goods, in fact courts (esp. juries) have a habit of seeing actions like those of the stepfather in a very poor light and 'mysteriously ignoring' his evidence. Quite right too. The law is there to serve justice, not a tool for revenge.
Crime - Handling Stolen Goods
Section 22(1) of the Theft Act 1968 states: A person handles stolen goods if, (otherwise than in the course of stealing) knowing or believing them to be stolen;
� They dishonestly receive the goods.
� They dishonestly undertake or assist in the retention, removal, disposal or realisation, by, or for the benefit of another person;
� Or they attempt to dishonestly arrange to dishonestly undertake or assist with the retention, removal, disposal or realisation of stolen goods.
Read "ASSIST WITH THE RETENTION".
Yes she is committing Handling stolen goods.
My advise, get rid of the computer ASAP. A crime will still have been committed but without evidence, it could never be proved.
Section 22(1) of the Theft Act 1968 states: A person handles stolen goods if, (otherwise than in the course of stealing) knowing or believing them to be stolen;
� They dishonestly receive the goods.
� They dishonestly undertake or assist in the retention, removal, disposal or realisation, by, or for the benefit of another person;
� Or they attempt to dishonestly arrange to dishonestly undertake or assist with the retention, removal, disposal or realisation of stolen goods.
Read "ASSIST WITH THE RETENTION".
Yes she is committing Handling stolen goods.
My advise, get rid of the computer ASAP. A crime will still have been committed but without evidence, it could never be proved.
-- answer removed --
Meredith101 correctly states that simply using stolen goods is not an offence. However, it is an offence to 'dishonestly undertake or assist in the retention of stolen goods'.
(Theft Act, 1968, 22(i)):
http://www.lawteacher.net/PDF/TA%201968.pdf
A court might well take the view that your niece has assisted in the retention of the computer through not reporting the matter to the police.
However, a court cannot convict a person of a criminal offence unless the prosecution can prove their case 'beyond reasonable doubt'. To create 'reasonable doubt' she only has to say "Yes, I know that my stepfather got the computer from work but he told me that the company were upgrading their computers and that he'd been offered the chance to buy the computer cheaply".
Unless the stepfather has witnesses who will give evidence to say that they heard him tell your niece that the computer was stolen (or unless she's foolish enough to admit that she knew about the theft), the chances of the CPS even launching a prosecution (yet alone getting a conviction) are virtually zero.
Chris
(Theft Act, 1968, 22(i)):
http://www.lawteacher.net/PDF/TA%201968.pdf
A court might well take the view that your niece has assisted in the retention of the computer through not reporting the matter to the police.
However, a court cannot convict a person of a criminal offence unless the prosecution can prove their case 'beyond reasonable doubt'. To create 'reasonable doubt' she only has to say "Yes, I know that my stepfather got the computer from work but he told me that the company were upgrading their computers and that he'd been offered the chance to buy the computer cheaply".
Unless the stepfather has witnesses who will give evidence to say that they heard him tell your niece that the computer was stolen (or unless she's foolish enough to admit that she knew about the theft), the chances of the CPS even launching a prosecution (yet alone getting a conviction) are virtually zero.
Chris
-- answer removed --
If I were her I'd contact the rightful owners of the computer and take it back to them, saying she has now reason to believe that it's theirs.That action shows honesty on the part of the person who has been using the computer (honesty is a valuable asset to a solicitor).If pressed she can say that she has her doubts about it because of what she has learned/been told and, if it is their property and should not have been taken, she would certainly not wish to have it or use it .
That leads to this: the owners might simply say 'thanks' and take it no further OR they might, perhaps,bother to involve the police. Considering that she has been so honest and returned the property it is highly unlikely that the police will bother with her, but go straight to her father in law.No problem there: he wants to be arrested and charged (or so he says)! : I can't see that the CPS would bother with her on a case when she has so acted and her defence would be so runnable (that once she appreciated that the goods were not her father in law's to have she acted bravely and honestly) The CPS only present a case when they feel there is a '75 per cent chance' of getting a conviction.That's easy for them with him but not at all with her.
It wouldbe the word of a man who is patently dishonest (an admitted thief!) who is motivated by ill will and malice ( blackmail someone in a divorce) against a woman of good character who want s to be a solicitor.
That leads to this: the owners might simply say 'thanks' and take it no further OR they might, perhaps,bother to involve the police. Considering that she has been so honest and returned the property it is highly unlikely that the police will bother with her, but go straight to her father in law.No problem there: he wants to be arrested and charged (or so he says)! : I can't see that the CPS would bother with her on a case when she has so acted and her defence would be so runnable (that once she appreciated that the goods were not her father in law's to have she acted bravely and honestly) The CPS only present a case when they feel there is a '75 per cent chance' of getting a conviction.That's easy for them with him but not at all with her.
It wouldbe the word of a man who is patently dishonest (an admitted thief!) who is motivated by ill will and malice ( blackmail someone in a divorce) against a woman of good character who want s to be a solicitor.
Isn't it this nutters word against hers. All sha has to say is that she did not know it was stolen (if it's that simple). She ised the computer thinking he had bought it.
My children would not have a clue (if i took something home) where it came from.
It's just he said - she said. And to be honest with you - in know who i would believe. He as to prove that she knew it was stolen.
My children would not have a clue (if i took something home) where it came from.
It's just he said - she said. And to be honest with you - in know who i would believe. He as to prove that she knew it was stolen.
1 to 10 of 10
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.