Bates, R. v

Bates, R. v

The prosecution was entitled to present count 3 (handling stolen goods) as an alternative only to count 1 (burglary) and not to count 2 (theft), both as a matter of law and on the facts. The handling of stolen goods was not limited to the Toyota but included other items, and did not occur only in the course of the theft. The jury was properly directed, and the verdicts were not unsafe.

Parties
Prosecutor: Regina; Appellant: Dwayne Bates
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Theft, Handling Stolen Goods, Burglary, Alternative Verdicts
Criminal Law Theft Handling Stolen Goods Burglary Alternative Verdicts

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecutor

Dwayne Bates

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the convictions for both theft and handling stolen goods were mutually exclusive and unsafe given the facts and directions to the jury
  2. 2 Whether the jury was properly directed regarding alternative counts

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution was entitled to present count 3 (handling stolen goods) as an alternative only to count 1 (burglary) and not to count 2 (theft), both as a matter of law and on the facts. The handling of stolen goods was not limited to the Toyota but included other items, and did not occur only in the course of the theft. The jury was properly directed, and the verdicts were not unsafe.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.