Odger's English Common Law

384 RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS, &C.
thief that the prisoner received the property knowing it to
have been stolen. 1 But in the present day such evidence
would probably be held sufficient corroboration to enable the
case to be left to the jury. And if the stolen goods are found
in the possession of the prisoner recently after the theft, this
is a very material fact for the consideration of the jury,
though it does not of itself shift the onus of proof aad throw
upon the prisoner the burden of proving that he received the
goods honestly. 2 What is "recent possession" depends upon
the nature of the goods in each particular case. " If the
jury think that the explanation given " (by the prisoner) " may
reasonably be true, although they are not convinced that it is
true, the prisoner is entitled to be acquitted, inasmuch as the
Crown would then have failed to discharge the burden im-
posed on-it by our law of satisfying the jury beyond reason-
able doubt of the guilt of the prisoner. The onus of proof is
never changed in these cases ; it always remains on the
prosecution." 3
In order to further facilitate the proof of the receiver's
guilty knowledge, it has been enacted that " there may be
given in evidence at any stage of the proceedings
(a) the fact that other property stolen within the period of
twelve months preceding the date of the offence
charged was found or had been in his possession ;
(b) the fact that within the five years preceding the date
of the offence charged he was convicted of any offence
involving fraud or dishonesty. This last-mentioned
fact may not be proved unless
(i.) seven days' notice in writing has been given
to the offender that proof of such previous con-
—
viction is intended to be given
;
—
(ii.) evidence has been given that the property
in respect of which the offender is being tried was
found or had been in his possession." 6
1 B. v. Robinson (1864), 4 F. & F. 43 ; B. v. Pratt (1865), ib. 315.
2
Ji. v. Sehama, M v. Abramovitoli (1914), 84 L J. K. B. 396 ; R. v. Sadash (1918),
87 L. J. K. B. 732 ; B. v. Sanders (1919), 14 Cr. App. E. 11.
n Per Lord Reading, C. J., 84 L. J. K. B. at p. 398.
« See M. v. Smith, [1918] 2 K. B. 415.
h Larceny Act, 1916, s. 43 (1).
*