Burglary Flashcards
Burglary is an offence under s9 of the Theft Act 1969. S9 provides two different ways in which burglary can be committed:
Under s 9(1)(a) a person can be guilty of burglary if he enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser with intent to steal, inflict GBH, or do unlawful damage to the building or anything in it.
Under s 9(1)(b) a person is guilty of burglary if, having entered a building or part of a building as a trespasser, he steals or attempts to steal anything in the building or inflicts or attempts to inflict GBH on any person in the building.
To commit a burglary, there must be:
- entry
- of a building or part of a building
- as a trespasser
The difference between the subsections is the intention at the time of entry.
For s9(1)(a) the defendant must intend to do one of the three listed ulterior offences at the time of entering.
Whereas…
For s9(1)(b) what the defendant intends on entry is irrelevant, but the prosecution must prove that he actually committed or attempted to commit theft or GBH.
Entry is not defined in the Theft Act 1968, but there have been several cases on the meaning of the word. The first main case on this point was Collins (1972) (D entered a girls bedroom and she thought he was her boyfriend)
In this case the CofA said that the jury had to be satisfied that D had made ‘an effective and substantial entry’.
However, in Brown (1985) the concept of ‘an effective and substantial entry’ was modified to ‘effective entry’
Brown- standing outside but leaning through shop window rummaging through goods. The lower part of his body was outside the shop but the top half of his body was inside. The CofA said that the word ‘substantial’ did not materially assist the definition of entry and his conviction for burglary was upheld as clearly in this situation his entry was effective.
However, in the case of Ryan (1996), the need for an ‘effective’ entry does not appear to have been followed.
Ryan (1996) - d was trapped when trying to get through a window into a house at 2:30am. His head and right arm were inside the house but the rest of his body was outside. This could just be said to be an ‘effective’ entry. However, the CofA upheld his conviction for burlary saying that there was evidence on which the jury could find that the defendant had entered.
The Theft Act 1968 gives an extended meaning to the word ‘building’ so that it includes inhabited places such as houseboats or caravans, which would otherwise not be included in the offence.
The main problem for the courts have occurred where a structure such as a portacabin has been used for storage or office work.
B and S v Leathley (1979) - storage facility that rested on sleepers, had doors with locks and was connected to the electricity - held to be a building
Norfolk Constabulary v Seekings and Gould (1986) - a lorry trailer with wheels which had been used for storage and was connected to the electricity - held not to be a building. The fact it had wheels meant that it remained a vehicle.
‘Part of a building’ covers the situation where the d may have permission to be in one part of a building so is not a trespasser, but then moves to another part where he does not have permission.
Example - parts of buildings that are off limits to the public, private areas in airports etc.
Walkington (1979) - D went into a counter area in a shop and opened a till. This area was clearly marked by a three-sided counter. D’s conviction for burglary under s9(1)(a) was upheld as he had entered part of a building (the counter area) as a trespasser with the intention of stealing.
‘As a trespasser’ - for d to be charged with burglary he must have entered as a trespasser. The tort of trespass is a civil concept and so can be committed negligently. But for the purposes of criminal law there is a MR requirement so entry must either be;
1) Intending to trespass, OR
2) Being reckless as to whether he is a trespasser
If a person has permission to enter they are not a trespasser, this was illustrated by Collins (1972)
D climbed up a ladder on the side of the house to an open window and saw a naked girl inviting him in as she thought this was her boyfriend. No evidence he was a trespasser as she had invited him in to the room.
He was charged with the offence under s9(1)(a) because he was reckless about being a trespasser.
‘Going beyond permission’ - where the d is given permission to enter but then goes beyond that permission, he may be considered a trespasser. This was decided in Smith and Jones (1976)
Smith and Jones (1976) - the d’s went to Smith’s father’s house in the middle of the night and took two TV sets without the father’s knowledge or permission.
The father stated that his son would not be a trespasser in the house; he had a general permission to enter.
The CofA upheld their convictions for burglary, ruling that:
‘a person is a trespasser for the purpose of s9(1)(b) of the Theft Act 1968 if he enters premises of another knowing that he is entering in excess of the permission that has been given to him to enter, or being reckless whether he is entering in excess of that permission’.
Mens rea of Burglary
For both s 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(b) the d must know or be subjectively reckless as to whether he is a trespasser.
There must be the MR for the ulterior offence which means that under s9(1)(a) he must at the point of entry have the intent to commit:
- Theft
- GBH
- Criminal damage
The d may have conditional intent and this is enough for intent to satisy s9(1)(a), this means where the d has attempted to take something but there was nothing worth taking so didn’t bother.
For s9(1)(b) the MR required for the ulterior offences are for theft or GBH when committing (or attempting to commit) the AR of one of those offences
