Handling Stolen Goods: Section 22 Theft Act 1968 Explained

Introduction

Handling stolen goods is a separate offence from theft. It targets behaviour after the original theft, such as receiving or dealing with property known or believed to be stolen. Under section 22(1) of the Theft Act 1968, a person commits the offence if, dishonestly and knowing or believing goods to be stolen, they receive them or assist in their retention, removal, disposal or realisation by or for the benefit of another, or arrange to do so.

To prove the charge, the prosecution must show:

• The goods qualify as “stolen goods”
• The defendant handled them in one of the statutory ways (or arranged to do so)
• The defendant acted dishonestly
• The defendant knew or believed the goods were stolen

Theft and handling are distinct. You cannot be convicted of handling “by reason only of having stolen the goods” yourself.

What You'll Learn

• The statutory definition of handling stolen goods (Theft Act 1968, s22)
• What counts as “stolen goods” (s24), including proceeds and goods stolen abroad
• The actus reus: receiving, assisting retention/removal/disposal/realisation, and arranging
• The mens rea: “knowledge” vs “belief” that goods are stolen, and why suspicion alone is not enough
• Dishonesty after Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] and how it affects s22
• Timing issues: why handling is separate from theft and cannot be the same conduct
• Attempted handling and factual impossibility after Shivpuri
• When duress may apply to handling cases
• Practical steps for building or challenging a case

Core Concepts

The statutory definition (Theft Act 1968, s22)

Section 22(1) sets out several ways to commit the offence where the defendant knows or believes the goods are stolen and acts dishonestly:

• Receiving the goods
• Undertaking or assisting in their retention
• Undertaking or assisting in their removal
• Undertaking or assisting in their disposal or realisation
• Arranging to do any of the above

Key points:

• “Receiving” means taking possession or control, even briefly.
• “Retention” can include storing goods or keeping them safe for the thief or another.
• “Removal” covers moving goods from place to place, including transport.
• “Disposal or realisation” includes sale, pawn, exchange, or turning goods into money or other property.
• “By or for the benefit of another person” means the defendant need not be the person who ultimately profits.
• Section 22(2): you cannot be guilty of handling by reason only of having stolen the goods. Theft and handling of the same goods are treated as alternatives.

What counts as “stolen goods”? (Theft Act 1968, s24)

For s22, “stolen goods”:

• Includes goods stolen by theft, robbery, burglary, or obtained by blackmail or fraud
• Covers goods stolen outside England and Wales if the taking was criminal where it occurred
• Extends to proceeds of dealing with stolen goods and anything representing such proceeds
• Remains “stolen” until restored to the person from whom they were stolen (or otherwise to lawful possession or custody)

This matters for timing. If the goods have been recovered by police and restored to lawful custody, or returned to the owner, they may no longer qualify as “stolen goods” for a handling charge.

Mens rea: knowledge or belief that goods are stolen

The mental element requires that the defendant either:

• Knew the goods were stolen; or
• Believed the goods were stolen

Distinctions:

• Knowledge is certainty based on what the defendant actually knew (for example, being told by the thief that the goods were stolen, as seen in cases such as R v Hall [1985]).
• Belief is a subjective state of mind that the goods are stolen. It is more than suspicion. The defendant must actually accept that the goods are stolen as the only realistic explanation in the circumstances.
• Mere suspicion, even coupled with deliberately avoiding asking questions, is not enough. In R v Moys [1984], the Court of Appeal stressed that suspicion plus “wilful blindness” does not automatically amount to belief.

Proof often relies on circumstances from which knowledge or belief can be inferred: price far below market value, removal of serial numbers, covert handovers, links to known thieves, or incriminating messages.

Dishonesty after Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] UKSC 67

Dishonesty is an essential element. The test is now:

1. Determine the defendant’s actual state of mind as to the facts; then
2. Apply the standards of ordinary decent people to decide whether the conduct was dishonest

There is no longer a requirement that the defendant must have realised ordinary people would view the conduct as dishonest. This replaces the old two-limb approach from Ghosh.

Timing: theft vs handling and appropriation

Handling deals with the movement or dealing with goods after the theft has taken place. Appropriation for theft can occur without moving the goods. In R v Pitham & Hehl [1977] 65 Cr App R 45, offering to sell someone else’s furniture amounted to appropriation. That illustrates that theft can be complete even before physical removal, so any later dealing can fall within handling (provided the other elements are met).

Remember:

• Theft and handling are alternatives for the same goods. A person should not be convicted of both for the same conduct.
• If the same person both steals and, later, handles, the court will treat the position with care and may proceed on an alternative basis. Section 22(2) prevents a handling conviction merely for the act of stealing itself.

Attempted handling and factual impossibility

Attempts are governed by the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. After R v Shivpuri [1987] AC 1, a person can be guilty of attempting to handle stolen goods even if, unknown to them, the goods are not in fact stolen, provided:

• They intended the full offence (believed the goods were stolen), and
• Their acts were more than merely preparatory

This overruled Anderton v Ryan [1985], which had suggested there could be no attempt where the completed act would be innocent on the true facts.

Duress as a defence

Duress can apply to handling, subject to strict limits. The modern approach stems from R v Graham [1982] and R v Hasan [2005] UKHL 22:

• There must be a threat of death or serious injury
• The defendant’s response must be that of a person of reasonable firmness, sharing relevant characteristics
• The threat must be immediate or almost immediate, leaving no reasonable avenue of escape
• There must be a direct link between the threat and the offence committed
• Self-induced duress (e.g., voluntary association with violent criminals where duress is foreseeable) will usually defeat the defence
• Duress is not available for murder or attempted murder; it can, however, be raised for handling charges

Key Examples or Case Studies

R v Hall [1985] 81 Cr App R 260

• Context: The defendant dealt with goods while aware of their stolen status.
• Key point: Clear evidence that the defendant was told the goods were stolen can amount to knowledge.
• Application: Strong direct admissions or messages stating the goods were stolen will support the mens rea.

R v Moys [1984] 79 Cr App R 72

• Context: The trial judge equated suspicion and wilful blindness with belief.
• Key point: Suspicion (even with deliberate failure to enquire) is not the same as belief. The test is subjective.
• Application: Defence can argue that the defendant suspected but did not actually believe the goods were stolen.

R v Pitham & Hehl [1977] 65 Cr App R 45

• Context: Offering to sell furniture belonging to another person.
• Key point: Appropriation for theft may occur without physical removal. Theft can be complete before any later dealing.
• Application: Helps separate theft from handling. If theft is already complete, later involvement may be handling.

Anderton v Ryan [1985] AC 560 and R v Shivpuri [1987] AC 1

• Context: The defendant believed goods were stolen when they were not.
• Key point: After Shivpuri, you can be guilty of attempted handling even if the goods are not actually stolen, so long as you believed they were and went beyond mere preparation.
• Application: Prosecutors can charge attempt where the defendant’s belief and conduct meet the test, despite factual impossibility.

R v Hasan [2005] UKHL 22 (duress)

• Context: Association with criminals and the scope of duress.
• Key point: Duress has strict requirements; it may be unavailable where the defendant voluntarily associated with criminals and should have foreseen the risk of coercion.
• Application: Defence of duress must be carefully evidenced and will be scrutinised for immediacy, escape routes, and self-induced risk.

Practical Applications

For prosecutors

• Prove the goods were “stolen goods”: Use evidence of the original theft, property markings, serial numbers, owner testimony, or police recovery records. Consider s24: include proceeds and goods stolen abroad.
• Prove handling: Identify the specific mode (receive, retain, remove, dispose/realise, arrange). Show possession, storage, transport, sale, pawning, or arrangements (messages, calls, meetings).
• Prove knowledge or belief: Rely on price anomalies, condition (e.g., removed serial numbers), covert dealings, association with thieves, and texts or admissions. Explain to the jury that suspicion is not enough.
• Prove dishonesty (Ivey): Invite the jury to apply the standards of ordinary decent people to the defendant’s conduct in light of the facts as the defendant understood them.
• Consider charging alternatives: Charge theft and handling in the alternative where evidence is uncertain, but do not pursue convictions for both for the same goods.

For defence practitioners

• Challenge “stolen goods” status: Were the goods already restored to lawful possession? Were they substituted or not the same items? Are they legitimate proceeds rather than proceeds of stolen goods?
• Attack the handling limb: Argue there was no “receiving” (no control), no real assistance in retention/removal/disposal, or no arrangement beyond tentative talk.
• Undermine knowledge/belief: Provide a credible, documented explanation (e.g., receipts, normal pricing, open-market purchase, regular business procedures). Emphasise that suspicion is not belief (Moys).
• Contest dishonesty: On the defendant’s understanding of the facts, would ordinary decent people view the conduct as dishonest? Use evidence of transparency, routine processes, and lack of concealment.
• Duress: If applicable, gather evidence of threats, immediacy, lack of safe escape, and the direct link to the handling conduct. Be ready to address Hasan on self-induced duress.

Common evidence and practical checks

• Look for: below-market prices, missing or defaced serial numbers, hurried cash sales, coded messages, changes to vehicles or containers, tools for removal of tags, burner phones.
• Preserve digital trails: messages arranging pick-ups, routing instructions, bank transfers reflecting rapid “realisation”.
• Verify provenance: invoices, supplier records, trading history, and customer details.
• Timing and custody: Confirm when the goods ceased to be “stolen” (e.g., police recovery and return) to avoid charging errors.

Summary Checklist

• Section 22(1): handling includes receiving, assisting retention/removal/disposal/realisation, or arranging to do so
• Goods must be “stolen goods” under s24 (including proceeds and goods stolen abroad) and must not have been restored to lawful possession
• Mens rea: defendant knew or believed the goods were stolen; suspicion alone is insufficient
• Dishonesty follows Ivey: objective test by ordinary decent people, based on the facts as the defendant understood them
• Theft vs handling are alternatives; you cannot be guilty of handling by reason only of the theft itself (s22(2))
• Appropriation for theft can occur without movement (Pitham & Hehl); handling then concerns later dealings
• Attempted handling is possible even if the goods were not actually stolen, if the defendant believed they were and acted beyond mere preparation (Shivpuri)
• Duress may apply but is tightly controlled (Hasan): immediacy, no safe escape, and no self-induced involvement with violent criminals
• Build or challenge cases with strong provenance evidence, pricing, serial numbers, communications, and custody records
• Consider alternative counts at charge stage; direct and circumstantial evidence both matter

Quick Reference