Consider this scenario:
A victim reports that their home was broken into and a cellphone was stolen. They reported it to the police and shortly after, the police found the stolen cellphone in a neighbour’s home. However, there is no direct evidence that the neighbour broke into the victim’s home.
When questioned, the neighbour cannot provide a proper explanation as to how he came into possession of the item, or their explanation seems untrue.
Due to the time between the theft and the discovery of the cellphone in the neighbour’s possession which is short, it can be inferred that the neighbour is in recent possession of the stolen item. This can form evidence in the theft case.
What is the Doctrine of Recent Possession?
The doctrine of recent possession is a legal principle that allows a court to infer that a person who is found in possession of recently stolen property, without a reasonable explanation, likely stole the property themselves or received it knowing it was stolen. It is simply a matter of drawing an inference from possession of recently stolen property. An inference is basically a conclusion reached having considered the evidence and reasoning.
The Test
In order to rely on recent possession, the following factors must be satisfied:
- Possession. It must be established that the individual had possession of the property in question. In other words, there must be proof that the individual had custody and control over that property. It does not have to be proved that the individual was caught with the property, but it is sufficient to prove that the individual had the property at a relevant time even if it means for example that the individual locked the property away for safekeeping.
- Whether the item was recently stolen. There must be satisfaction that the property was stolen and that the stealing was recent. The term “recent” depends on the nature of the property and how often it changed hands. Larger items such as cars and paintings can remain recently stolen for years as opposed to smaller items like bank notes which remain recently stolen for a shorter period since it changes hands faster. The consideration is whether the individual acquired the goods so recently he must have received them knowing it to be stolen or must have stolen it himself.
- No reasonable explanation for the individual’s possession of the stolen property. As stated before, if there is no other reasonable explanation for the individual’s possession of the property, an inference can be drawn of recent possession. Therefore, failure to provide an explanation can invoke the recent possession inference.
Rebutting the Recent Possession Inference
If the individual gives a reasonable explanation as to how he/she came into possession of the item, it can rebut any recent possession inference from being drawn. Once this reasonable explanation is given, it must be considered by the judge or jury when deciding the case.
Factors to consider in deciding whether to draw a recent possession inference
All the circumstances of the case should be considered in determining whether to draw a recent possession inference including:
i. The nature of the property
Consideration is given to whether the stolen property is a common item or something that can be considered memorable. The more memorable an item is, the inference can be drawn that it was recently stolen as it would be in high demand.
ii. The value of the property
Consideration is also given to the cost of the stolen item, whether it is expensive or not.
iii. The existence of any links between the person who possesses the property and the person who reported the theft
The circumstances as to whether the individuals know each other and in what capacity would be examined and whether they ever interacted before.
iv. The situation in which the item was discovered
Whether the item was being hidden upon discovery, can contribute to the inference that the item was stolen compared to the item being discovered in plain sight.
v. The period that elapsed between the stolen property and the property being discovered
This is a vital consideration in that the shorter amount of time between the theft and the individual acquiring the property can give rise to the inference that the property was stolen as opposed to a longer passage of time.
Conclusion
If there is no direct evidence that someone stole a reported stolen item, the doctrine of recent possession allows an inference that the person found with the item is either the thief or the receiver. However, this inference depends on various factors and the overall case. If the person gives a reasonable explanation for possessing the item, it can rebut the inference and support their defence.
Submitted by:
Aixa Edwards
Public Defender I
Public Defenders’ Department
Legal Aid and Advisory Authority,
23 Stanmore Avenue, Port of Spain.
Contact: 638-5222
Email:
Website: www. laaa.org.tt
This article is not meant to provide legal advice but simply to provide an overview of the law on this topic. Therefore, any mention of facts is purely hypothetical.
