Westcliff couple admit nine handling stolen goods charges

Couple admit nine handling stolen goods charges

Couple admit nine handling stolen goods charges

First published in Echo News
Last updated
by

A COUPLE admitted handling stolen goods after police found a haul of necklaces, bracelets and watches at their house.

Mark Barrett, 34, and girlfriend Nicola Finnigan, 32, were charged following a number of burglaries in Southend, including one at the home of an elderly woman who has since died.

Police found the jewellery which they believe were stolen during burglaries in Southend, Basildon and Rochford districts, at their home in Fairmead Avenue, Westcliff.

The unemployed couple were charged in January and appeared at Southend Crown Court on Wednesday, June 16.

Barrett, 34, admitted four counts of handling stolen goods while Finnigan, 32, admitted five counts of handling stolen goods.

A woman in her 70s had her home in Westcliff burgled in December last year but she has since died of natural causes.

The couple are due to be sentenced at Snaresbrook Crown Court on Thursday, July 24.

Anyone who has been the victim of a burglary or who has been offered jewellery in unusual circumstances should call detectives at Southend police station on 101, email andy.copley@essex.pnn.police.uk or call Crimestoppers anonymously on 0800 555111.

Comments (13)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:39pm Mon 23 Jun 14

Maddogg says...

Scum. Pondlife. Lock them up and lose the key. Hope they rot for a long time
Scum. Pondlife. Lock them up and lose the key. Hope they rot for a long time Maddogg
  • Score: 13

3:05pm Mon 23 Jun 14

sesibollox says...

Nothing lower the burglar scum, hope they get a long time in prison.
Nothing lower the burglar scum, hope they get a long time in prison. sesibollox
  • Score: 14

3:07pm Mon 23 Jun 14

danger2013 says...

Maddogg wrote:
Scum. Pondlife. Lock them up and lose the key. Hope they rot for a long time
They are only guilty of handling the stolen goods!! Nothing suggests they are the burglars. You dont know the circumstances they might of brought the goods in good faith and been stitched up themselves.
[quote][p][bold]Maddogg[/bold] wrote: Scum. Pondlife. Lock them up and lose the key. Hope they rot for a long time[/p][/quote]They are only guilty of handling the stolen goods!! Nothing suggests they are the burglars. You dont know the circumstances they might of brought the goods in good faith and been stitched up themselves. danger2013
  • Score: -18

3:43pm Mon 23 Jun 14

Kim Gandy says...

danger2013 wrote:
Maddogg wrote:
Scum. Pondlife. Lock them up and lose the key. Hope they rot for a long time
They are only guilty of handling the stolen goods!! Nothing suggests they are the burglars. You dont know the circumstances they might of brought the goods in good faith and been stitched up themselves.
Read the first line of the story, with particular attention to the word "admitted".
[quote][p][bold]danger2013[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maddogg[/bold] wrote: Scum. Pondlife. Lock them up and lose the key. Hope they rot for a long time[/p][/quote]They are only guilty of handling the stolen goods!! Nothing suggests they are the burglars. You dont know the circumstances they might of brought the goods in good faith and been stitched up themselves.[/p][/quote]Read the first line of the story, with particular attention to the word "admitted". Kim Gandy
  • Score: 8

4:12pm Mon 23 Jun 14

chapchap87 says...

Is Barrett 24 or 34... Get new editors will you Echo!!!!!!!
Is Barrett 24 or 34... Get new editors will you Echo!!!!!!! chapchap87
  • Score: 2

4:27pm Mon 23 Jun 14

emcee says...

Sentencing them to a few hours wandering about in the courthouse will soon put them back on the straight and narrow and help them turn their lives around.
Sentencing them to a few hours wandering about in the courthouse will soon put them back on the straight and narrow and help them turn their lives around. emcee
  • Score: 8

4:37pm Mon 23 Jun 14

alarminstaller says...

If there was no handlers there would be no burglars, to use the term "only guilty of handling". Is a very, very naive point of view.

The reality is that in most cases the right of silence is used to avoid having to answer police questioning, and if there is no scientific or circumstantial evidence connecting them to the scene of the crime the only charge that can be proceeded with is 'Handling stolen goods'
However the likelyhood of the handlers having actually committed the burglary is very high but not proveable.
Hopefully the Judge will sentence them to a custodial sentence as a deterrent to other would be criminals.
However the chances of receiving any type of custodial sentence these days is very unlikely due to the amount of liberal elitists now in positions of authority.
If there was no handlers there would be no burglars, to use the term "only guilty of handling". Is a very, very naive point of view. The reality is that in most cases the right of silence is used to avoid having to answer police questioning, and if there is no scientific or circumstantial evidence connecting them to the scene of the crime the only charge that can be proceeded with is 'Handling stolen goods' However the likelyhood of the handlers having actually committed the burglary is very high but not proveable. Hopefully the Judge will sentence them to a custodial sentence as a deterrent to other would be criminals. However the chances of receiving any type of custodial sentence these days is very unlikely due to the amount of liberal elitists now in positions of authority. alarminstaller
  • Score: 6

4:49pm Mon 23 Jun 14

danger2013 says...

Kim Gandy wrote:
danger2013 wrote:
Maddogg wrote:
Scum. Pondlife. Lock them up and lose the key. Hope they rot for a long time
They are only guilty of handling the stolen goods!! Nothing suggests they are the burglars. You dont know the circumstances they might of brought the goods in good faith and been stitched up themselves.
Read the first line of the story, with particular attention to the word "admitted".
Read the first line of my previous sentence with attention to detail. I never disputed the fact they are Guilty. You can never really go not guilty to handling stolen goods even if they were brought in good faith. Cause you are banged to rights just by having them in your possession regardless of circumstances. However its slanderous to call them burglars as they are not convicted burglars. ( as far as we know )
[quote][p][bold]Kim Gandy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]danger2013[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maddogg[/bold] wrote: Scum. Pondlife. Lock them up and lose the key. Hope they rot for a long time[/p][/quote]They are only guilty of handling the stolen goods!! Nothing suggests they are the burglars. You dont know the circumstances they might of brought the goods in good faith and been stitched up themselves.[/p][/quote]Read the first line of the story, with particular attention to the word "admitted".[/p][/quote]Read the first line of my previous sentence with attention to detail. I never disputed the fact they are Guilty. You can never really go not guilty to handling stolen goods even if they were brought in good faith. Cause you are banged to rights just by having them in your possession regardless of circumstances. However its slanderous to call them burglars as they are not convicted burglars. ( as far as we know ) danger2013
  • Score: -8

6:13pm Mon 23 Jun 14

Minceir. says...

danger2013 wrote:
Kim Gandy wrote:
danger2013 wrote:
Maddogg wrote:
Scum. Pondlife. Lock them up and lose the key. Hope they rot for a long time
They are only guilty of handling the stolen goods!! Nothing suggests they are the burglars. You dont know the circumstances they might of brought the goods in good faith and been stitched up themselves.
Read the first line of the story, with particular attention to the word "admitted".
Read the first line of my previous sentence with attention to detail. I never disputed the fact they are Guilty. You can never really go not guilty to handling stolen goods even if they were brought in good faith. Cause you are banged to rights just by having them in your possession regardless of circumstances. However its slanderous to call them burglars as they are not convicted burglars. ( as far as we know )
You could hardly be more wrong. The offence of Handling Stolen Goods requires that a person knew or believed the goods to be stolen. There are many ways that this element of the offence can be adduced and that was no doubt pointed out to the accused by the police or their legal representative or both. It's probably why they pleaded guilty.
[quote][p][bold]danger2013[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kim Gandy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]danger2013[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maddogg[/bold] wrote: Scum. Pondlife. Lock them up and lose the key. Hope they rot for a long time[/p][/quote]They are only guilty of handling the stolen goods!! Nothing suggests they are the burglars. You dont know the circumstances they might of brought the goods in good faith and been stitched up themselves.[/p][/quote]Read the first line of the story, with particular attention to the word "admitted".[/p][/quote]Read the first line of my previous sentence with attention to detail. I never disputed the fact they are Guilty. You can never really go not guilty to handling stolen goods even if they were brought in good faith. Cause you are banged to rights just by having them in your possession regardless of circumstances. However its slanderous to call them burglars as they are not convicted burglars. ( as far as we know )[/p][/quote]You could hardly be more wrong. The offence of Handling Stolen Goods requires that a person knew or believed the goods to be stolen. There are many ways that this element of the offence can be adduced and that was no doubt pointed out to the accused by the police or their legal representative or both. It's probably why they pleaded guilty. Minceir.
  • Score: 4

6:54pm Mon 23 Jun 14

danger2013 says...

Minceir. wrote:
danger2013 wrote:
Kim Gandy wrote:
danger2013 wrote:
Maddogg wrote:
Scum. Pondlife. Lock them up and lose the key. Hope they rot for a long time
They are only guilty of handling the stolen goods!! Nothing suggests they are the burglars. You dont know the circumstances they might of brought the goods in good faith and been stitched up themselves.
Read the first line of the story, with particular attention to the word "admitted".
Read the first line of my previous sentence with attention to detail. I never disputed the fact they are Guilty. You can never really go not guilty to handling stolen goods even if they were brought in good faith. Cause you are banged to rights just by having them in your possession regardless of circumstances. However its slanderous to call them burglars as they are not convicted burglars. ( as far as we know )
You could hardly be more wrong. The offence of Handling Stolen Goods requires that a person knew or believed the goods to be stolen. There are many ways that this element of the offence can be adduced and that was no doubt pointed out to the accused by the police or their legal representative or both. It's probably why they pleaded guilty.
So If I buy some jewellery of someone ive only just met and dont ask them questions where its obtained from. Am I breaking the law if it turns out it was stolen?
[quote][p][bold]Minceir.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]danger2013[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kim Gandy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]danger2013[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maddogg[/bold] wrote: Scum. Pondlife. Lock them up and lose the key. Hope they rot for a long time[/p][/quote]They are only guilty of handling the stolen goods!! Nothing suggests they are the burglars. You dont know the circumstances they might of brought the goods in good faith and been stitched up themselves.[/p][/quote]Read the first line of the story, with particular attention to the word "admitted".[/p][/quote]Read the first line of my previous sentence with attention to detail. I never disputed the fact they are Guilty. You can never really go not guilty to handling stolen goods even if they were brought in good faith. Cause you are banged to rights just by having them in your possession regardless of circumstances. However its slanderous to call them burglars as they are not convicted burglars. ( as far as we know )[/p][/quote]You could hardly be more wrong. The offence of Handling Stolen Goods requires that a person knew or believed the goods to be stolen. There are many ways that this element of the offence can be adduced and that was no doubt pointed out to the accused by the police or their legal representative or both. It's probably why they pleaded guilty.[/p][/quote]So If I buy some jewellery of someone ive only just met and dont ask them questions where its obtained from. Am I breaking the law if it turns out it was stolen? danger2013
  • Score: -7

8:33pm Mon 23 Jun 14

Maddogg says...

danger2013 wrote:
Maddogg wrote:
Scum. Pondlife. Lock them up and lose the key. Hope they rot for a long time
They are only guilty of handling the stolen goods!! Nothing suggests they are the burglars. You dont know the circumstances they might of brought the goods in good faith and been stitched up themselves.
Nine accounts of handling stolen goods in good faith? Really? Not one or two or even three. Nonsense!. They are both guilty of handling / robbing innocent hard working innocent people. Scum does not describe them.
[quote][p][bold]danger2013[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maddogg[/bold] wrote: Scum. Pondlife. Lock them up and lose the key. Hope they rot for a long time[/p][/quote]They are only guilty of handling the stolen goods!! Nothing suggests they are the burglars. You dont know the circumstances they might of brought the goods in good faith and been stitched up themselves.[/p][/quote]Nine accounts of handling stolen goods in good faith? Really? Not one or two or even three. Nonsense!. They are both guilty of handling / robbing innocent hard working innocent people. Scum does not describe them. Maddogg
  • Score: 6

12:05am Tue 24 Jun 14

andyman1971 says...

Minceir. wrote:
danger2013 wrote:
Kim Gandy wrote:
danger2013 wrote:
Maddogg wrote:
Scum. Pondlife. Lock them up and lose the key. Hope they rot for a long time
They are only guilty of handling the stolen goods!! Nothing suggests they are the burglars. You dont know the circumstances they might of brought the goods in good faith and been stitched up themselves.
Read the first line of the story, with particular attention to the word "admitted".
Read the first line of my previous sentence with attention to detail. I never disputed the fact they are Guilty. You can never really go not guilty to handling stolen goods even if they were brought in good faith. Cause you are banged to rights just by having them in your possession regardless of circumstances. However its slanderous to call them burglars as they are not convicted burglars. ( as far as we know )
You could hardly be more wrong. The offence of Handling Stolen Goods requires that a person knew or believed the goods to be stolen. There are many ways that this element of the offence can be adduced and that was no doubt pointed out to the accused by the police or their legal representative or both. It's probably why they pleaded guilty.
Danger.. your totally right and bang on!
[quote][p][bold]Minceir.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]danger2013[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kim Gandy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]danger2013[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maddogg[/bold] wrote: Scum. Pondlife. Lock them up and lose the key. Hope they rot for a long time[/p][/quote]They are only guilty of handling the stolen goods!! Nothing suggests they are the burglars. You dont know the circumstances they might of brought the goods in good faith and been stitched up themselves.[/p][/quote]Read the first line of the story, with particular attention to the word "admitted".[/p][/quote]Read the first line of my previous sentence with attention to detail. I never disputed the fact they are Guilty. You can never really go not guilty to handling stolen goods even if they were brought in good faith. Cause you are banged to rights just by having them in your possession regardless of circumstances. However its slanderous to call them burglars as they are not convicted burglars. ( as far as we know )[/p][/quote]You could hardly be more wrong. The offence of Handling Stolen Goods requires that a person knew or believed the goods to be stolen. There are many ways that this element of the offence can be adduced and that was no doubt pointed out to the accused by the police or their legal representative or both. It's probably why they pleaded guilty.[/p][/quote]Danger.. your totally right and bang on! andyman1971
  • Score: -3

3:37pm Tue 24 Jun 14

ninja1999 says...

Scum bags , im amazed anyone is defending them. Guilty is guilty, they probably contributed to that old lady during. Get a job you worthless scum! And there parents! Disgusting cretins.
Scum bags , im amazed anyone is defending them. Guilty is guilty, they probably contributed to that old lady during. Get a job you worthless scum! And there parents! Disgusting cretins. ninja1999
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree