Original in-game verdict

Background 1. The Crown asks the court to convict Callum Haines of handling stolen goods. Its case is that Callum held a phone that had been reported stolen and that his remark showed he already knew it was stolen. Callum disputes that he knew this. He says he was taking a phone back to its owner after another rider gave it to him. 2. The Crown bears the burden of proving every required element with reliable evidence. Rule 41 states that each element in a criminal matter must be supported by reliable evidence. Rule 8 also makes clear that suspicion or accusation alone is not enough. The court decides the case on the supplied record, not on facts that may exist outside it. Issues for determination 3. The issues are whether the Crown proved that Callum held the phone reported stolen, and whether it proved that he knew the phone was stolen. Both issues are the Crown’s burden. The defendant does not have to prove innocence or establish the truth of his explanation. Submissions of the parties 4. The Crown relies principally on PC Cole’s account. She says she saw Callum holding the phone and heard his remark before telling him it had been reported stolen. The Crown argues that, if the sequence is accepted, the remark supports the conclusion that Callum already knew the phone was stolen. It acknowledges that there is no separate record fixing the time of disclosure and that possession alone would not prove guilty knowledge. 5. The defendant says Callum did not know the phone was stolen until PC Cole told him. He relies on a message timestamped 23:38, in which Callum wrote that another rider had given him a phone to take back to its owner and that he was heading over. The defendant seeks dismissal or reduction of the charge. Evidence and findings 6. PC Cole’s statement, presented as exhibits 3-e2, 5-e2, and 16-e2, says she saw Callum holding a phone and remembers that his remark came before she told him it had been reported stolen. The statement was written the following afternoon and gives no separate time for the disclosure. Callum disputes the order. These three exhibits repeat the same statement; they are not three independent accounts. The statement is evidence supporting the Crown’s version, but its repetition does not add corroboration. 7. The message at 23:38, presented as exhibits 9-e3 and 16-e3, records Callum’s own account before the recorded stop: another rider gave him a phone to return to its owner, and he was heading over. Its timestamp and timing make it relevant to what Callum was saying before the stop. But it is self-authored, has no reply before the stop, and does not independently verify the handover or the other rider’s intention. It supports Callum’s explanation to a limited extent; it does not prove that explanation in full or settle what he knew. 8. The admitted testimony in statement 11 says another rider handed Callum the phone outside a Bristol takeaway. This supports that a handover occurred. It does not identify the phone as stolen or establish Callum’s knowledge. The record contains no separate theft report or other evidence identifying the phone Callum held as the phone reported stolen. Reasons 9. On possession, the Crown has evidence that Callum held a phone: PC Cole says she saw it in his hand, and the admitted testimony supports a handover. But the issue is not merely whether he held some phone. The Crown must connect that phone to the allegation that it was reported stolen. No report or other identifying evidence is in the record. The Crown’s assertion that it was reported stolen is a submission, not proof by itself. Under Rules 1, 8, and 41, the Crown has not proved this part of the allegation. The issue is not proven. 10. On knowledge, PC Cole’s account directly supports the Crown’s proposed sequence. If her recollection is accepted, the remark before disclosure could support an inference that Callum already knew. The court has considered that evidence and does not treat it as absent merely because it is disputed. However, the sequence is contested, the statement was written the following afternoon, and it gives no separate time for the disclosure. The Crown confirms that it has no separate timing record. The repeated copies of the same statement do not independently resolve the dispute. 11. The 23:38 message is not independent proof of an innocent handover, and the court does not treat it as conclusive. It is nevertheless a contemporaneous account predating the recorded stop and is consistent with Callum’s stated return-task explanation. Weighing it with the disputed sequence in PC Cole’s statement, the record does not reliably establish that Callum knew the phone was stolen before the officer told him. The Crown has not met its burden on knowledge. Rules 3, 8, and 41 require the court to resolve that uncertainty against the party bearing the burden, not against Callum. 12. The defendant’s alternative request to reduce the charge does not change the result. The Crown has not proved the charge as presented, and the record supplies no separate basis for a lesser finding. The appropriate outcome is dismissal and acquittal, not a reduced conviction. Final order 13. The charge against Callum Haines is dismissed. Callum Haines is acquitted. No payment or other monetary award is ordered. This order reflects the Crown’s failure to prove the required elements on the available record; it is not a finding that every detail of Callum’s account has been independently verified.