Charged with goods in custody in NSW.

The legislative source.

The Crown must prove three elements: (a) the accused had the property in their custody (or in one of the extended forms in paragraphs (b), (c) or (d)); (b) the property may reasonably be suspected of being stolen or otherwise unlawfully obtained; and (c) the accused has not satisfied the court that they had no reasonable grounds for suspecting the same. The third element is the satisfactory-account limb and is on the accused on the balance of probabilities.

The reasonable-suspicion standard is objective. The court does not need to be satisfied that the property was actually stolen, only that there are reasonable grounds to suspect it was. The classic indicators are: the property bears no plausible connection to the accused's circumstances (a new high-end laptop in the possession of a person with no apparent income); the property was found in a context that does not fit (industrial tools in a residential bedroom, multiple identical items, items with the price tags still on them); or the accused's account of how they came to have the property does not stand up (a vague gift, an unidentified seller, a deal that is too good to be true).

The suspicion attaches to the property, not to the person. A person of previous good character can still be found in custody of property reasonably suspected of being stolen, and a person of bad character is not in custody of stolen property merely by reason of their record. The brief should disclose the basis for the suspicion. Where the basis is shaky, the charge fails on the first or second element.

The satisfactory-account defence is the live issue in most defended matters. The accused must show, on the balance of probabilities, that they had no reasonable grounds for suspecting the property was stolen. The defence runs on the accused's evidence about how they came to have the property and the surrounding circumstances. A clean explanation supported by documentation (receipt, gift card, transaction record, communications with the seller) succeeds; a vague or shifting account fails.

Penalties and likely outcomes.

The realistic range.

Section 527C is a low-end summary offence. For a first offence with a satisfactory subjective case, a section 10(1)(b) Conditional Release Order without conviction is achievable. The CRO is the orthodox outcome for matters where the property is recovered and returned, where the accused has cooperated, and where the surrounding circumstances are consistent with an honest misjudgment rather than dishonesty.

Where a conviction is recorded.

Where a conviction is recorded, the realistic outcome is a small fine, a community correction order, or a CRO with conviction. Full-time custody on a section 527C matter is rare and is usually reserved for the high-end motor-vehicle-property limb with a substantial criminal history.

Penalty notice option.

Police can issue a penalty notice for some section 527C matters under the Criminal Procedure Regulation 2017 (NSW). The penalty notice option avoids court entirely if accepted, but the accused has 28 days to elect to have the matter heard. The election can be the right call where the brief does not support the reasonable suspicion or where a section 10 outcome on a defended hearing is in reach.

Defences and arguments worth running.

The satisfactory-account defence.

The accused must show, on the balance of probabilities, that they had no reasonable grounds for suspecting the property was stolen. The defence runs on the accused's evidence and is supported by documentary material (receipt, gift card, transaction record, communications with the seller), by the surrounding context (the price paid, the location of the transaction, the appearance of the property), and by character evidence about the accused's general approach to second-hand goods. A clean account, given consistently from the first police interaction, succeeds.

No reasonable suspicion.

Where the brief does not disclose reasonable grounds for suspecting the property was stolen, the second element is contestable. Common weaknesses: the property is ordinary and unremarkable; the value is not at the level that would attract suspicion; the accused's circumstances do not stand out as inconsistent with ownership; the police officer's account of why they formed the suspicion is thin. Where the second element fails, the satisfactory-account defence does not need to be reached.

Custody is not established.

Section 527C catches custody and constructive custody. For a person in a shared residence, a shared vehicle or a shared workspace, custody is contestable where the property could equally have been in the custody of another occupant. The brief should establish the basis for asserting custody against the accused specifically.

The early conversation matters.

Many section 527C matters succeed or fail on the account given to police at the time of the discovery. A clean and consistent account at that stage often resolves the matter without charge. A vague or shifting account at that stage usually produces the charge. We deal with this in the police-interview guidance: at the scene, name and address, then nothing. The detailed account is given through the lawyer after the charge.

What we do for clients facing this charge.

The first step is the brief: the police account of the discovery, the body-worn-video, any field interview of the accused at the scene, the photographs of the property, and the police inquiries into the property's history (serial number checks, owner reports, transaction trace). The strength of the reasonable suspicion is usually clear from the brief.

The second step is the account. Where the accused has a clean explanation supported by documentation, the matter often resolves at the first listing on a plea with a section 10 application, or on the brief being reviewed and withdrawn. Where the account is more contested, we prepare for a defended hearing.

The third step is the property. Recovery and return of the property to its lawful owner is the single best subjective factor on a section 527C matter. Where the property is still under police hold, we work the return through the prosecution; where it has been returned, we secure documentation of the return for the sentence brief.

Defended hearings on section 527C are short (a half day) and are usually about the satisfactory account. The accused's evidence is the central piece; documentary support and any third-party witnesses to the transaction make the difference.

What we tell clients on the first call.

The practical detail below is not legal advice for your matter. It is the version of the conversation the firm typically has with a client charged with goods in custody in the first hour.

What evidence police usually rely on.

The recovered property (where any), CCTV from the location of the alleged theft, the complainant's statement, and any admissions said to have been made on arrest.

What to bring to the first consultation.

• The Court Attendance Notice (or charge sheet) and any bail papers.
• Anything police gave you in writing — fact sheet, certificate of analysis, search warrant copy, property seizure record.
• A short written timeline of the day, in your own words.
• Any receipt, registration, or evidence of provenance for the property said to have been stolen.

Common mistakes in the first twenty-four hours.

• Talking to anyone other than your lawyer about the matter. Friends, family, co-accused and social media are not privileged.
• Deleting messages, photographs, posts or browser history. The trail left by deletion is often more damaging than what was there.
• Contacting the complainant or any prosecution witness, even through a third party.
• Selling, disposing of, or moving any of the property in question. Even good-faith disposal is often charged as a further offence.

What not to say to police without advice.

You must give your name and address. You do not have to answer anything else, and in most cases you should not. The standard answer is: “I do not wish to answer questions. I want to speak to my lawyer.” Section 89 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) protects silence; the narrow section 89A exception applies only on indictable matters and only where a special caution has been given in the presence of an Australian lawyer.

The timeline you can expect.

From charge to first court appearance is typically two to six weeks in the Local Court and longer where the matter is indictable. The brief of evidence is served by the prosecutor on a date set at the first mention. From service of the brief to first reply is typically twenty-eight days. Defended hearings and committals are then listed weeks or months out depending on the court list.

When an early plea may or may not be appropriate.

An early plea attracts a sentencing discount of up to twenty-five per cent if entered at the first available opportunity, but it locks in a conviction. The firm does not advise an early plea before the brief is served and read. Where the property and the conduct are not in dispute, an early plea preserves the discount and clears the way for a section 10 application on a low-value matter.

Court-specific notes.

If the matter is listed at the Downing Centre, Parramatta, Penrith, Burwood, Manly, Newtown, Waverley, Hornsby or Sutherland Local Court, the firm appears in person. Wollongong Local Court matters are run from the firm's Wollongong office. ACT Magistrates Court and ACT Supreme Court matters are run from chambers; the firm appears in person at all ACT mentions.

Recent outcomes · goods in custody matters.

Anonymised outcomes from the firm's matter set. Names, dates beyond the year, and identifying details have been altered or omitted to preserve client confidentiality. Each result was determined on the particular facts and is not a guarantee of any future outcome.

Frequently asked.