Because theft is "the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving that person of it" (see http://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/crime-reduction/rob_burg.htm (http://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/crime-reduction/rob_burg.htm))
It was apparently the opinion of the prosecution that, if Burrell had informed the Queen that he had the stuff for safekeeping, that was good enough to demonstrate that he neither dishonest, not intending to permanently deprive of possession.
Possibly there's a value judgement to be made here, in that if the person he'd told about it had been me, or his fence, then he would still be guilty of theft. If it had been one or more of the executors, then clearly he wouldn't. The Queen in this case lies somewhere in between, and I don't know whether the case was dropped because the prosecution guessed that it would probably lose, or because some other law or precedent establishes that it would definitely lose.
Re: Haven't a clue...
Because theft is "the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving that person of it" (see http://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/crime-reduction/rob_burg.htm (http://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/crime-reduction/rob_burg.htm))
It was apparently the opinion of the prosecution that, if Burrell had informed the Queen that he had the stuff for safekeeping, that was good enough to demonstrate that he neither dishonest, not intending to permanently deprive of possession.
Possibly there's a value judgement to be made here, in that if the person he'd told about it had been me, or his fence, then he would still be guilty of theft. If it had been one or more of the executors, then clearly he wouldn't. The Queen in this case lies somewhere in between, and I don't know whether the case was dropped because the prosecution guessed that it would probably lose, or because some other law or precedent establishes that it would definitely lose.