Conviction Upheld

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31112, 15 July 1966, Page 7

Conviction Upheld

“The whole set-up here is one which I think confirms the appellant’s guilt” said His Honour, in dismissing an appeal by Noel Tehau Wakefield, aged 30, a bar manager, against his conviction for receiving stolen goods. His Honour commented on Wakefield’s surreptitious acquisition of goods, and his speedy disposal of them at prices far below their full value—he had paid £2O for a £9O portable television set stolen from Sedley Wells, Ltd., and sold it for £35. Mr C. B. Atkinson, who conducted Wakefield’s appeal, submitted that he was a man of good character, without previous criminal conviction, who had bought the goods from a man Doyle, thinking they were uncustomed goods off a ship. He had paid the cheap prices one would expect for contraband goods, and had sold them quickly at a small profit, the television set from display on his own bar.

His Honour: This man was prepared to traffic in uncustomed goods freely and openly? I don’t regard that as of good character. Mr Atkinson, in support of his submission about uncustomed goods, traversed in detail evidence given at Wakefield’s trial before a magistrate, producing a “sea-

man's bag” in which Wakefield said he was first shown the television set. His Honour said it seemed an ordinary sort of bag to him. Mr C. M. Roper (for the Crown) submitted that Wakefield was an experienced bar manager, and that it was incredible that he could have been so naive as he claimed. It was most significant said Mr Roper, that Wakefield had obtained £285 worth of goods—the television set and transistor radios—for only £7O. He had sold these goods to strangers in his bar. “One would have thought that having come by this windfall, he would have sold the goods to his regular patrons,” Mr Roper said. His Honour said that the magistrate had directed himself properly on the onus of proof, and having seen and heard the witnesses, preferred the prosecution evidence to that of Wakefield and Doyle. | “The whole set-up here is one which I think confirms the appellant’s guilt,” His Honour said. He confirmed the conviction, and the fine of £75 which had been imposed.