Supreme Court Man Acquitted On One Charge: Guilty On Second

Press, Volume C, Issue 29516, 18 May 1961, Page 13

Supreme Court Man Acquitted On One Charge: Guilty On Second

Russell Francis Thompson, aged 27, a driver, was acquitted by a jury in the Supreme Court yesterday on one charge of receiving goods knowing them to have been dishonestly obtained, but was found guilty on a second charge of receiving. Thompson was found not guilty of receiving two transistor radios and a camera and tripod, valued at £93 19s, from Joel David George Dale, on January 1, 1960. He was found guilty of receiving 20 transistor radios, valued at £283 16s, from Dale on January 10, 1961. Mr Justice Macarthur remanded Thompson in custody for sentence on May 25. The jury took 65 minutes to reach its verdict. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr P. T. Mahon) conducted the case for the Crown. Mr B. J. Drake appeared ■ for Thompson. Opening the case for the Crown, Mr Mahon said that last New Year's Eve George Wallace Eyrie parked his car outside a boarding house in Barbadoes street. The next morning, he found that two radios and a camera and tripod had been taken from the car. About the same time, a radio had been stolen from the showroom of She New Zealand Farmers’ Co-opera-tive Association in Cathedral square. On January 1, the accused was visited by Dale. The accused bought the camera, tripod and radio stolen from Ryrie’s car and the radio stolen from the shop in the square from Dale for £4O. They were worth £93 19s.

Radios Stolen On January 9, a radio shop at 230 Manchester street, owned by a man named Hughes, was broken into, and 26 Bell transistor radios stolen. On January 10, Dale visited the accused and the accused bought 20 of the transistor radios stolen from the shop in Manchester street for £125. The radios were valued at £283 16s.

On January 18, Mr Mahon said, the police visited the accused’s home with a search warrant. They found the Sharps radio stolen from Ryrie’s car, the Pye radio stolen from the New Zealand Farmers’ Co-operative Association’s shop and one or two of the Bell radios that had been stolen from the Manchester street shop. The police did not recover the stolen camera. Questioned. the accused said he knew nothing about the camera and tripod, i The police, however, recovered it a few days later and also recovered the remaining number of the 20 Bell radios. Dale would be called as witness for the Crown, said Mr Mahon. He would say that all the property sold by him to the accused had been acquired by him from two other men who had stolen the radios and camera. Dale would say he was acting on behalf of these two men in selling the stolen property for them under some financial arrangement with them. “Dale has already pleaded guilty to two charges of receiving and has been sentenced in the Magistrate’s Court to a year’s imprisonment. He is now serving that sentence.” Mr Mahon said. The accused made three statements to the police about the matter. He said that the first time he knew the 20 transistor radios had been stolen was when he read in a newspaper on the afternoon of January 18 about the Manchester street shop being broken into. He then took some of the radios away from his home. "The Crown’s case is that the accused well knew that the radios and camera were dishonestly obtained when he bought them from Dale. You are entitled to take Into account that he paid under half tneir value.” Mr Mahon concluded. Hostile Witness Dale gave evidence of his being convicted in the lower Court on charges of receiving the camera and radios. Mr Mahon: From whom did you receive them? Dale: I decline to answer. On the application of Mr | Mahon, Dale was declared a hostile witness and the Court gave Mr Mahon permission to cross-examine. Referred to the depositions taken at the lower Court hearing, Dale said he was recorded as saying in evidence that he had received the camera and radios from two men named “Punton” and "West.” ,

Mr Mahon: Is that what you said? Dale: There could be a doubt.

Did you tell the accused where you got the radios from?—l did not.

Did he ask you where they came from?—No. Did you say they were hot?—Not exactly. You never said they were stolen?—Don’t snap at me. His Honour: What did you say?

Dale: I don't wish to be i persecuted. Mr Mahon: Did you say in the lower Court that you told the accused the radios were hot? Dale: You are bouncing me.

Mr Mahon: Why don’t you try telling the truth?

Dale (to his Honour): He’s snapping at me. ■ Referred to the lower Court depositions. Dale agreed he had said in evidence, “I told him (the accused) I did not want the radios in my ear as they were hot The transaction then took place.” Mr Mahon: So that was what you said? Dale: Not exactly. Were you surprised when you found they were stolen? —Not exactly. He is bouncing me ... (to his Honour). I want to say that I sold the radios and I got exactly nothing. Cross-examined by Mr Drake, Dale said he first met the accused at the Woolston

Hotel last October. The accused was then a barman porter. Mr Drake: Did the accused have a transistor radio? Dale: He could have Did he ask you if you picked up anything at Lyttelton?—He could have. Can you get cheap radios at Lyttelton because they are uncustomed?—Not me. I have not done that. Not you, anyone?—Yes. Are uncustomed goods sometimes called hot?—Could be. Did the accused ask you to get a transistor for him?— Yes. He knew I was at work. Detective D. W. Stewart said he searched the accused's home on January 18. The accused told him all the Bell transistor radios were not at home. The witness found two of them, and the accused took him to a shop in Victoria street. There were 18 of the Bell transistor radios that the accused had left there in a suitcase. Detective - Sergeant T Thomson read three statements made by the accused concerning the Pye. Sharp, and Bell radios and the camera and tripod. He said that he, told the accused to get the camera and the accused had produced it three days after his home was searched Mr Mahon: What do you understand by the word "hot." The witness: It refers to stolen property. Have you heard of it referring to uncustomed goods? —Rarely. “Jargon” Cross-examined by Mr Drake, the witness said the accused had first told him that he thought the camera and radios came from a ship at Lyttelton. Mr Drake: If "hot” does not include uncustomed goods, what is the jargon for uncustomed goods?

The witness: I do not know Then "hot" could include uncustomed goods?—l have never personally heard it used that way. Dale until recently was a denizen of Australia?—Yes. Are you familiar with the use of the word “hot" in Australia?—l have been there. You would not know Australia as well as you know Lyttelton?—No. Detective-Sergeant R. G. Ball gave evidence under section 2848 of the Crimes Act, 1908. that the accused had been convicted on two charges of theft in 1959. He produced copies of the convictions extract in the Magistrate’s Court at Christchurch.

Cross-examined, the wit-

ness said that before 1959 the accused had no convictions and was well thought of. The accused was 25 at that time. As tar as the witness knew, the accused had no other convictions. The witness said he had been in the Police Force for 14 years. This was the first receiving case in his experience where an accused person had had his previous convictions proved by the Crown. Addresses Mr Drake elected to call no evidence for the defence. In his final address. Mr Mahon said the jury might well wonder why the accused, as Dale said, did not ask where the radios had come from if he thought they were too cheap. Dale was an accomplice of the accused in the eyes of the law, and his evidence should therefore be treated cautiously. It would be dangerous to convict the accused on the uncorroborated evidence of Dale, but he submitted that there was plenty of corroborative evidence.

Normally the rule was that the fact that an accused person had been in trouble before could not be disclosed to a jury. An exception was made to this rule in receiving cases because the state of mind of an accused person had to be proved in this charge—it had to be shown that the accused knew the goods had been dishonestly obtained when he received them, said Mr Mahon. As required by the section, the defence had been notified that the Crown would prove the accused’s previous convictions.

“It would be unfair for you to convict the accused simply because you know he has been convicted for theft. That would be wrong. “But you may think that a person who has been convicted of dishonesty would not be so naise and ingenuous as a person who had a clear record in buying goods so astonishingly cheap, not being sold from a shop but brought round in a suitcase,” Mr Mahon submitted. Defence Address In his last two statements the accused had said he thought the camera and transistor radios had come from ships at Lyttelton, and this was consistent with their cheapness and also with the fact that the accused knew Dale worked at Lyttelton, Mr Drake said, before reviewing the evidence.

If the jury accepted the accused's explanation that he thought the radios and camera were uncustomed goods from Lyttelton it must acquit him. If the jury was left in some state of doubt, it must acquiet. Only if the jury rejected the accused's explanation entirely could it convict him.