burglary Flashcards
booklet 17
what act is needed
Theft Act 1968, s.9
what is the definition that Theft Act 1968, s.9 gives for burglary
enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser and with intent to commit any such offence as is mentioned in subsection (2) or having entered any building or part of a building as a trespasser he steals or attempts to steal
what is mentioned in subsection (2)
Theft, Inflicting GBH, Inflicting Criminal Damage
what are subsection 2 offences called
ulterior offences
what are the two types of burglary (sections)
s.9(1)(a)
s.9(1)(b)
actus reus of s.9(1)(a)
Enter
A building or part of a building
As a trespasser
actus reus of s.9(1)(b)
Enter
A building or part of a building
As a trespasser
commit or attempt to commit theft or GBH once inside
mens rea of s.9(1)(a)
intention or recklessness to trespass
intention on entry to commit theft, GBH or criminal damage
mens rea of s.9(1)(b)
intention or recklessness to trespass
mens rea of theft or GBH at point of committing or attempting it
ulterior offences s.9(1)(a)
theft
GBH
Criminal damage
ulterior offences s.9(1)(b)
theft
GBH
actus reus: enter case
R v Brown 1985
(d smashed the window of Argos and leant in to take items. Even though only his arms had entered, thus was an effective entry as it allowed him to take things)
what does r v brown suggest
that even if your whole body doesn’t enter the building you have still entered as in that case his arm was still able to take things meaning it was a burglary
Building or Part of a Building case definition (name the case)
Stevens v Gourley 1859
what cases help define the meaning (5)
r v coleman 2013
r v rodmell 1994
b&s v leathey 1979
norfolk v seekings & gould 1986
r v walkington 1979
r v coleman 2013
held to include narrow boats/barges
r v rodmell 1994
includes a garden shed
b&s v leathey 1979
included a freezer with doors and locks and a electricity supply
norfolk v seekings & gould 1986
lorry on wheels not a building
r v walkington 1979
includes part of the building
(d was in Debenhams- allowed to be in shop but not allowed to be behind the till when he went behind the unoccupied counter area on the shop floor and opened the cash till drawer but there wasn’t money in there)
as a trespasser meaning
no permission to be there
If D has permission to enter – whether express or implied – or has legal authority to enter (e.g. as a police officer), they cannot be guilty of burglary
case to back this
r v collins
whats another way they can be seen as a tresspasser
gone beyond permission given
case to back this
R v Smith & Jones 1976
mens rea: Intention or Recklessness to trespass
what is the case for this (think tresspassing actus reus)
r v collins
for s.9 (1) (a) when does this need to exist
when d enters building
what type of intent does this include (think burglary)
conditional intent
case to back this
AG’s Ref (1 & 2 of 1979)
for s.9 (1) (b) when does intent need to exist
does not need to exist on entry – it is only needed at the point the offence is committed
can include attempted gbh and theft not just gbh and theft
