recent possesion

[elcana]

how recent is recent for the purpose of doctrine of recent possession?

 

[army judge]

how recent is recent for the purpose of doctrine of recent possession?

Well, this is interesting.
I think you are referencing Australian law.

At least, I will use that as my base.

Recent doesn't refer to time, rather it references the defendant's intent!

What you call "the doctrine of recent possession" is a misnomer.

You see, OP, "the doctrine of recent possession" is not a legal doctrine and isn't referencing "recent" possession (as in a measure of time) at all.

What "the doctrine of recent possession" refers to is rather the possession of property that has been stolen.

You're referring to what the law calls, circumstantial evidence.

This applies to the "mens rea" (as in formation of the necessary intent) applied to addressing the possession of purloined goods.

Essentially a jury instruction is given to inform the jury that when a person is alleged to have handled (as in possessed) stolen goods, said goods are found in their possession, or they are alleged to have been dealing (as in selling) those goods that were recently stolen; the jury may infer that the defendant is guilty if:
he offers no explanation of his possession,
they do not believe the explanation given by the defendant, if any!

The jury is not required to draw any inference, however.
The jury must only draw such an inference, if they are satisfied that the defendant has committed the offense with which he or she is charged.

Yeah, I always thought it was a tad confusing, too.

But, this crown case is often cited when researching the topic.

R v Abramovitch [1914–15] All ER 204

http://www.paclii.org/sb/criminal-law/ch23-receiving.htm

Dadgum, I do recall some of that stuff.

That QC designation wasn't improper, now that I think about it!

Pat myself on back, pat myself on back, pat myself on back, pat myself on back, pat myself on back, pat myself on back, pat myself on back, pat myself on back, pat myself on back!
LOL