Bates, R. v [2020] EWCA Crim 1288 (17 June 2020)

Bates, R. v [2020] EWCA Crim 1288 (17 June 2020)

The prosecution was entitled to put its case such that count 3 (handling) was an alternative only to count 1 (burglary), not to count 2 (theft), as the handling involved goods beyond the scope of the theft count. The jury was properly directed, and the verdicts were not inconsistent or unsafe. The appeal was dismissed.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] EWCA Crim 1288
Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Dwayne Bates
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Theft, Handling Stolen Goods, Burglary, Mutually Exclusive Offences, Jury Directions
Criminal Law Theft Handling Stolen Goods Burglary Mutually Exclusive Offences Jury Directions

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Dwayne Bates

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether convictions for both theft and handling stolen goods in relation to the same property are permissible
  2. 2 Whether the jury was properly directed regarding alternative and mutually exclusive counts

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution was entitled to put its case such that count 3 (handling) was an alternative only to count 1 (burglary), not to count 2 (theft), as the handling involved goods beyond the scope of the theft count. The jury was properly directed, and the verdicts were not inconsistent or unsafe. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed