Click here to obtain a Word version of this document.
When to Use this Charge
This charge should be given when it is alleged that the accused handled goods by undertaking or assisting in their retention, removal, disposal or realization. It will need to be modified if it is alleged that the accused handled the goods in any other way.
I must now direct you about the crime of handling stolen goods. To prove this crime, the prosecution must prove the following 4 elements beyond reasonable doubt:
One – the accused handled goods.
Two – those goods were stolen goods.
Three – the accused knew or believed that they were stolen goods.
Four – the handling was dishonest.
I will now explain each of these elements in more detail.
Handling of goods
The first element that the prosecution must prove is that the accused handled goods. In this case, the goods we are talking about are [identify goods].
The word "handling" is a technical legal term, which covers many different types of activities. In this case, it is alleged that the accused "handled" the goods by [insert relevant type of handling, e.g., "assisting another person to dispose of them].
[If it is alleged that the accused undertook the prohibited activity him or herself, add the following shaded section]
A person "undertakes" an activity if he or she does it him or herself. However, to be classified as "handling", that activity must be done for the benefit of another person. It is not sufficient that the accused undertakes the activity for his/her own benefit.
[If it is alleged that the accused assisted someone else to perform the prohibited activity, add the following shaded section]
A person "assists" someone in an activity if s/he acts in a way that is intended to help them to perform that activity. It does not matter whether or not the assistance is successful.
[If relevant, add: Passively standing by, failing to speak, or failing to stop another person, is not "assistance" for the purpose of this offence.]
If more than one person has been charged with the handling count, add the following shaded section
The person that NOA [assisted/undertook the activity for] cannot have been [identify co-accused]. There must have been another person for whose benefit NOA was acting.
[If it is alleged that the accused undertook or assisted in the realisation of the goods, add the following shaded section]
A person "realises" goods if he or she exchanges them for value, such as when a person sells goods.
[Summarise relevant evidence and arguments.]
Goods were Stolen Goods
The second element that the prosecution must prove is that the goods were stolen goods at the time NOA handled them.
This means that someone must have committed the crime of theft in relation to the goods before NOA handled the goods. 
In this case [insert relevant evidence and arguments].
Knowledge or Belief
The third element that the prosecution must prove is that the accused knew or believed that the goods were stolen goods at the time of the handling.
"Knew" and "believed" are ordinary words. A person either knows something or they don’t. A belief is less than actual knowledge, but more than a suspicion. It involves being aware of a fact and requires a firm conviction.
When you consider what the accused knew or believed about the goods, you may take into account the circumstances in which the accused handled the goods. However, it is not enough that the accused should have known that the goods were stolen. This element only looks at what the accused in fact knew or believed.
You must focus on the accused’s state of mind at the time of the handling. A person is not guilty of handling stolen goods if s/he [identify type of handling, e.g., assists another person to dispose of them] and then later discovers that those goods were stolen goods. The knowledge or belief that the goods were stolen must have existed at the time s/he handled the goods.
In this case [insert relevant evidence and arguments].
The fourth element that the prosecution must prove is that at the time of the handling, the accused was acting dishonestly.
In this context, "dishonesty" has a special legal meaning. A person acts dishonestly when he or she handles property and does not believe that he or she has a legal right to do so.
In this case there is no evidence that the accused had any honest belief in respect of the handling. You should therefore have no difficulty finding this element proven. 
To summarise, before you can find NOA guilty of handling stolen goods, the prosecution must prove to you, beyond reasonable doubt:
One – that NOA handled goods; and
Two – that those goods were stolen goods at that time; and
Three – that at that time NOA knew or believed those goods were stolen goods; and
Four – that NOA handled the goods dishonestly.
If you find that any of these elements have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, then you must find NOA not guilty of handling stolen goods.
Section 88A – Handling and Theft as Alternative Offences
[If the accused is charged with both handling stolen goods and theft in the indictment, add the following shaded section]
As you are aware, in this case NOA has been charged with both theft of [identify goods] and handling stolen goods. [Identify relevant counts on the indictment.] These are alternative charges. It is the prosecution’s case that NOA either stole the goods him/herself, and so is guilty of theft, or s/he received them, and so is guilty of handling stolen goods.
There are, then, four possible views you might take about this case.
One – You are satisfied that the accused is guilty of theft;
Two – You are satisfied that the accused is guilty of handling stolen goods;
Three – You are satisfied that the accused is guilty of one of theft or handling stolen goods, but are unable to decide which one;
Four – You are not satisfied that the accused is guilty of either theft or handling.
I must direct you as a matter of law that if each of you are individually satisfied of one of the first three possibilities I just mentioned, but you are unable to unanimously agree on which offence the accused committed, the law requires you in that situation to find the accused guilty of theft and not guilty of handling, as theft is considered the less serious offence.
I emphasise that this only applies if you are all satisfied that the accused is guilty of either theft or guilty of handling. If any juror is not satisfied that the accused is guilty of theft or handling, then you will either return a verdict of not guilty of both offences, if you all take that view, or you will inform me that you are unable to reach a unanimous decision, if that is the case.
 If the goods may be "stolen goods" for another reason (e.g., because they were obtained through blackmail) this section will need to be modified accordingly. See Handling Stolen Goods for information concerning the meaning of "stolen goods".
 If the issue of dishonesty is disputed, this section of the charge will need to be modified accordingly. See Charge: Theft (Extended) for assistance.
Last updated: 3 December 2012