The High Court has ruled that a prosecution for possessing stolen property does not require “irrefutable” evidence of theft or evidence directly from the owner. Circumstantial evidence may suffice, provided the court is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the property was stolen.
Mr Justice Noonan gave the ruling on 16 April 2015 in a consultative case stated from the District Court. The questions arose in a prosecution of Derek Cooney under section 18 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001, concerning a black Carrera men’s mountain bicycle.
The prosecution evidence was that Garda Thomas Murray stopped Cooney’s van on Finglas Road, Finglas, on 27 January 2014 and saw the bicycle in the rear. Cooney first said it belonged to a friend, then said he had bought it from an unknown youth for €30. Garda Murray found that the bicycle’s chassis number had been filed away. Cooney also admitted having reservations about whether it was stolen.
At the close of the prosecution case, the defence sought a direction, arguing that without evidence from an injured party the prosecution had not proved the bicycle was stolen. The District Court referred two questions to the High Court: whether conviction required irrefutable evidence that the owner had not consented to the taking, and whether the defendant’s admissions about his state of mind and the purchase circumstances could be considered in deciding whether the property was stolen.
Mr Justice Noonan said section 18 requires proof that the accused possessed property, that it was stolen, that possession was without lawful authority or excuse, and that the accused knew it was stolen or was reckless as to that possibility. Proof of the defendant’s belief alone would not establish that the bicycle was stolen.
But the evidence went beyond that belief, the judge said. The contradictory accounts of how Cooney came to possess the bicycle, the suspicious purchase for €30 and the obliterated identification markings could support a finding that it was stolen. The judge said the circumstances provided ample evidence for a reasonable person to reach that conclusion; proof need not be mathematical certainty, but must be beyond reasonable doubt.
The High Court answered yes to both questions, with a qualification on the first: the court must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the property was taken without the owner’s consent. The judgment answered the District Court’s questions; it did not itself determine Cooney’s guilt or impose a sentence.