The risk of handling stolen property

Wahome Thuku

Margaret was a businesswoman who lived at Lake View Estate in Nakuru town, Rift Valley Province.

One day in March 2004, some people broke into her house and stole a television set, a CD player and a video deck.

Exactly one month later, police arrested a suspect who then led them to a house where the TV had been kept. The house at Kavumbini Estate in the same area belonged to an old woman called Felista.

After a search, police officers recovered the stolen TV in the house. Felista, who was present during the search, was arrested.

The following day, Felista and the other man were charged before a Nakuru magistrate with house breaking and stealing contrary to section 304(1) read with Section 279(b) of the Penal Code.

Felista was charged with an alternative count of handling stolen goods contrary to section 322 (2) of the penal code, which at the time attracted a14-year jail term with hard labour.

Police recovery

In court, Felista admitted that the police recovered the TV in her house after conducting the search. But she said it had been left there by one of her co-accused and another man called Salim.

She told the court that she did not know that the TV had been stolen

In January 2006, Felista was acquitted of theft charges but convicted of handling stolen goods. She was sentenced to seven years in jail with hard labour.

Her co-accused was convicted of breaking and stealing, but was sentenced to only five years in jail. Felista appealed to the High Court in Nakuru and the case was heard again by one judge.

The State conceded the appeal on the ground that the evidence on record did not warrant the conviction and sentence. The State counsel said Felista was an old woman and should have been given the benefit of doubt, as she was gullible when the offence was committed. She did not know the TV was stolen property.

In November 2006 the judge delivered his verdict. What would be your verdict?

VERDICT

The judge rejected the argument by both the State Counsel and the defence lawyer that Felista had wrongly been convicted of handling stolen goods.

He said she knew or ought to have known in the circumstances that the TV was stolen. By feigning ignorance she was only stating what would save her skin.

The magistrate had properly evaluated the evidence and convicted her. So her appeal against conviction was dismissed.

But on the seven-year jail sentence, the judge observed that her co-accused had been sentenced to lesser term. Felista was a first offender.

The magistrate had not considered her age and other circumstances of the case and had wrongly exercised his discretion when sentencing her.

In November 2006, the judge commuted the sentence to the ten months already served saying Felista had already learned her lesson. That day she was set free.