Man acquitted on receiving charge

Press, 20 July 1979, Page 18

Man acquitted on receiving charge

After deliberating for 50minutes a jury yesterday in the Supreme Court found: Wade Phillip Smith, aged 24,1 unemployed, not guilty on a> charge of receiving and he I was discharged by Mr Justice Casey. Smith had pleaded not guilty to a charge of receiving 'Bl batteries, 28 batterychargers and 17 jumper leads, valued at §6128, from Michael Sjoberg, when he knew they hud been stolen. . Mr E. H. Parsons appeared for Smith, and Mr D. J, L. {launders for the Crown. In opening his case Mr {launders said that on the night of May 23 the premises of the Christchurch Battery Company in Victoria Street were broken into and batteries and related equipment were stolen.

Next day, as the result of information received. Smith and Michael Sjoberg were apprehended by . detectives. Stnith was in possession of a : rented Holden utility vehicle which he hired about noon on that day. .When Smith's home was I searched 81 batteries, 28 battery chargers and 17 jumper leads were found in an upstairs room. Smith told Detective G. F. Scott that he had arrived home about 3.45

a.m. to find Sjoberg at his) house and he assisted him to, shift some of the batteries to the room where they) were found before going to ! bed. The following morning Smith said he hired the rental vehicle to assist in getting rid of the batteries. The Crown said that Smith was guilty of receiving the stolen property because ha had assisted in concealing and disposing of it.

On May 24 Constable Brendan Spratt had been watching Smith’s home when he saw Smith drive past the house a number of times in the utility vehicle. Later Smith had admitted that he knew the police were waiting for him at the house, Mr Saunders said. Smith said in evidence that when he arrived home at 3.45 a.m., he found his girl friend cleaning up glass from a broken panel in the front door and Sjoberg was there drinking coffee. When Sjoberg told him about bringing the batteries to the house Smith said he was very angry and told him to get'them out of the house as quickly as possible. He had no knowledge that the burglary- of the battery company was going to take place and when he learned

what had happened he wanted nothing to do with it. Smith said he had hired; the utility vehicle to speed, up Sjoberg getting the bat-! teries out of his house and! back to the people Sjoberg) had received them from. Sjoberg paid for the hire of the vehicle. After seeing Sjoberg get pulled up by the police while driving his car he knew the police would be waiting for him at his house. He drove past the house about three times and saw a car across the road with a detective in it. He was scared and did not want to go home, Smith said. In his address to the jury Mr Parsons said that the Crown had failed to prove the essential elements in the offence of receiving. It had not been shown that Smith ever took possession of the stolen property or had custody of it. On the contrary he had wanted the goods taken out of his house at the first opportunity. The goods were delivered to the house in Smith’s absence and he was very angry when he returned home and found out what had happened, Mr Parsons said.