On the possession of stolen property charge, Russell argues that he didn't know the TV was stolen.

Fantastic news! We've Found the answer you've been seeking!

Question:

On the possession of stolen property charge, Russell argues that he didn't know the TV was stolen. Will he still be convicted of this charge? Explain with particular reference to the mens rea for this offence.

Russell was out driving along Lougheed Highway when he saw a large delivery truck parked on the side of the road. The cargo door of the truck was open, and there were many boxes inside the truck. The boxes appeared unopened. There was a sign beside the truck that said "TV's for Sale". Russell was intrigued, so he stopped.

He approached Jonathan the truck driver and asked about the TV's. Jonathan said "I'm selling them at 75% off the retail price. Brand new." Jonathan couldn't believe his luck: he just happened to need a new TV. He asked Jonathan why they were so inexpensive, and he replied: "Well, I just got them from a liquidator, and I have nowhere to store them so I'm just selling them here, on the side of the road. First come, first served."

That was enough for Russell. He couldn't resist such a good deal - he bought a new high-end TV, still in the box, for 25% of the retail price in stores or online. He quickly drove home and set up his new TV. However, only a few hours later the picture got quite bad - there was clearly something wrong with the TV. The problem was, buying it as he had, there was no warranty (to be clear, it really was a brand new TV). Russell got really angry.

Russell decided he was going to go right back to Jonathan and confront him. For some bizarre reason, as he ran out the door he grabbed a jar of peanut butter. Russell quickly found Jonathan, still with his truck on the side of Lougheed Highway. At the moment Russell arrived, however, Jonathan was sitting in the front cab of the truck. Russell jumped out of his car, jar of peanut butter in hand, yelling at Jonathan. Russell then threw the jar of peanut butter directly at Jonathan who was on the other side of the truck windshield.

Russell threw that jar of peanut butter with enough force that it broke through the windshield and hit Jonathan in the chest. Thankfully for Jonathan the windshield absorbed most of the impact so by the time the jar of peanut butter hit Russell he sustained only minor bruising to his chest and peanut butter stains on his clothes.

The police soon arrived. After hearing the whole story Russell was charged with three offences (Jonathan is a separate matter): possession of stolen property (in relation to the TV he purchased), assault with a weapon (for throwing the peanut butter at Jonathan), and mischief (for the damage to the truck windshield).