⇒ The offence can be broken down into four elements (as seen in section 22 Theft Act 1968 and expanded in section 24(2)):

• (1) It must be shown that the goods have already been stolen.
• (2) It must be shown that the defendant handled the property.
• (3) It must be shown that the defendant knew or believed that the goods were stolen.
• (4) The defendant was dishonest.

⇒ It is not necessary for the prosecution to prove who stole the goods, as long as it is clear the goods have been stolen by someone.

⇒ If the defendant believes the goods to be stolen, but in fact they are not, then the defendant may be guilty of an attempted handling offence.

⇒ It must be shown that the defendant engaged in or arranged one of the following:

1. Receiving the property; or
2. Undertaking any of the following:
1. retention;
2. removal;
3. disposal;
4. realisation

... of the goods either by another or for another's benefit.

3. Assisting in any of the following:
1. retention;
2. removal;
3. disposal;
4. realisation

... of the goods either by another or for another's benefit.

⇒ The terms used here are readily understandable and are to be given their normal meanings.

⇒ The test is subjective: it does not matter whether a reasonable person would have known the goods were stolen, what matters is what the defendant knew.

⇒ The words knowledge and belief are to be given their normal meaning.

⇒ Suspicion the goods are stolen is not enough.

⇒ To convict the defendant of handling the jury must be persuaded that the defendant was dishonest.

⇒ The Ghosh test for dishonesty will be used (R v Ghosh [1982]).

⇒ The Ghosh test requires the jury to consider two separate questions in deciding whether or not the defendant was dishonest:

1. Was what the defendant did dishonest according to the standards of reasonable and honest people?
2. Would the defendant realise that reasonable and honest people would regard what he/she did as dishonest?

⇒ If the answer to both these questions is ‘yes’ then the defendant is dishonest. If the answer to either question is ‘no’ then the defendant is not dishonest.

⇒ However, note, the full test does not need to be used in all cases; only the first question needs to be asked unless the defendant gives evidence that he or she thought his or her conduct was honest according to the standards of ordinary people.

⇒ It will be rare that someone who is handling what he or she knows or believes to be stolen goods will e able to claim successfully that he or she was acting honestly