John v. R. Crim. App. 896-M-70; 28/5/71; Mnzavas Ag. J.

John v. R. Crim. App. 896-M-70; 28/5/71; Mnzavas Ag. J.

            The appellant was charged with and convicted of housebreaking and stealing c/ss 294(1) and 265 of the Penal Code and was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment and 24 strokes corporal punishment. It was established that the appellant had been found in possession of a banco bed and a handbag which were properly identified by the complainant and two other witnesses about six months after their disappearance from the complainant’s house. It was argued that the doctrine of recent possession should be invoked because beds are not one of those items which easily change hands.

                        Held: (1) “There are numerous authorities as to what period can be accepted as recent to bring an accused with in the doctrine of recent possession. Four years have been held not recent enough when cattle theft was involved. One month has been held recent when stealing of a radio was in issue- MUSA ALLI vs. R. (1968) H. C. D. case No. 157. In this case a banco bed was stolen and was found in the possession of the appellant six months after the theft. A bed is, I agree with the Republic, not so easily transferable as for example a shirt. Though I would easily invoke the doctrine of recent possession if a bed is found with an accused two months after it was stolen. I would be hesitant to do so if the theft involved a shirt. But in my view, a period of over six months cannot, without causing injustice to the accused, be said to be recent where the thing stolen is a bed. I feel that the better inference from the facts of this case would be one of receiving stolen property knowing it to have been stolen.” (2) “The convictions are varied to receiving stolen property knowing it to have been stolen c/s 311(1) of the Penal Code. As for sentence the justice of the case will, I think, be met if the accused is sentenced to 18 months imprisonment.”