LAW

Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Pitham and Hehl (1976)
​Handling Stolen Goods & Appropriation
I. Case Summary:
  • Citation: Pitham and Hehl (1976) (Court of Appeal)
  • Subject: Appropriation; Handling Stolen Goods
II. Facts:
  • M knew his friend was in prison.
  • M sold his friend's furniture to the defendants (D1 & D2).
  • M took D1 & D2 to the friend's house and sold them the furniture.
III. Issue:
  • Did the handling of the goods by D1 & D2 occur after appropriation, thus constituting "handling stolen goods?"
IV. Holding:
  • The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction of D1 & D2 for handling stolen goods.
  • M had appropriated the furniture before D1 & D2 handled it.
V. Reasoning:
  • Even though M did not have complete control over the property (due to his friend's imprisonment), he assumed the rights of the owner when he:
    • Took D1 & D2 to the friend's house.
    • Invited them to buy the furniture.
  • This assumption of ownership rights constituted "appropriation."
  • Once appropriation by M was complete, the goods became "stolen."
  • Therefore, D1 & D2's subsequent handling of the furniture was, in fact, "handling stolen goods."
VI. Key Concepts & Implications:
  • Appropriation: This case provides an example of conduct that constitutes appropriation even without physical removal or complete control. The assumption of owner's rights is key.
  • Handling Stolen Goods: The case highlights the sequence of events necessary for this offense: 1) theft (via appropriation), followed by 2) handling of the goods by the defendant.​
Picture
0 Comments

Author

Learn the fact about law