Receiving stolen property — reckless as to whether property had been stolen. The defendant faced a charge of receiving 50 cartons of stolen manuka honey, worth $30,000, being reckless as to whether or not the honey was stolen. The defendant did not dispute that he had received the stolen honey, and that he had possession and control of it. Police had seized the stolen honey from the defendant's two business premises. When interviewed by police, the defendant had claimed that he and his marketing manager had bought the honey some months previously, from a long-time acquaintance. The detective constable admitted that the defendant may have been confused by questioning, as there was a language barrier. The defendant's former purchasing manager described an incident where a man had offered to sell the business a quantity of manuka honey for a substantially lower price than what the purchasing manager would normally have paid. The defendant subsequently purchased the honey directly from the man rather than through the former purchasing manager. The former purchasing manager did not see any purchase orders, invoices or other documents relating to the sale, which was highly unusual. The prosecution submitted that for the defendant to purchase the honey in this manner met the definition of recklessness, being "complete indifference" as to whether or not the goods were stolen. The defence argued that the price the defendant had paid for the honey was not low enough to be a gross undervalue and the defendant had made no attempts to remove the labels from the jars or hide the items he had received, therefore the court could not draw an inference of recklessness on the defendant's part. The court found that the defendant knew that the amount he had paid for the honey was much less than it was worth. Also he made the purchase in a highly irregular manner, dispensing with the normal procedures, making payment in cash, and buying the honey from a person with no credentials as a supplier. This purchase amounted to a conscious and unreasonable risk, and therefore the defendant was reckless as to whether the honey was stolen. The court found the defendant guilty as charged. Judgment Date: 2 February 2018.