Burglary (AO1) Flashcards
Burglary is defined under which section of the Theft Act 1968?
Section 9 of the Theft Act 1968
How many ways can burglary be committed under s9 of the theft act 1968?
In two different ways
Under s9 (1)(a) a person is guilty of burglary if he…
“A person is guilty of burglary if he enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser with the intent to steal, inflict GBH, or commit unlawful damage to the building or anything in it”
Under s9 (1)(b) a person is guilty of burglary if…
“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 or inflicts or attempts to inflict grievous bodily harm on any person in the building”
What are three common elements that must be proven for s9(1)(a) and s9(1)(b)?
-Entry
-Of a building or part of a building
-As a trespasser
What is the difference between s9(1)(a) and s9(1)(b)?
The time at which the intention is developed around entry.
How is entry defined?
Instead of through Theft Act 1968, the courts use case law to define entry.
Does there have to be an actual or complete entry to be guilty of burglary?
No
What was the principle in Ryan (1996)
The CofA upheld the conviction stating that the defendants partial presence within the building amount to entry as it was classed as effective entry
Which part of the Theft Act 1968 defines building?
Section 9(4) Theft Act 1968
What does the Theft Act 1968 fail to do?
It fails to give any basic definition for building, this is unproblematic as houses, flats, offices, factories etc. are all considered buildings
What was the principle Stevens v Gourley (1859)
Judges stated a building needs 2 elements: a fairly permanent structure, and to be of considerable size
What was the principle in B and S Leathley (1979)
The freezer container was a building as it had been in the same place for 3 years
What was the principle in Norfolk Constabulary v Seekings and Gould (1986)
The character of the structure hadn’t changed they were still vehicles and weren’t a building for the purpose of robbery
What was the principle in Walkington (1979)
The defendants conviction for burglary under S.9(1)(a) was upheld as he entered part of a building with intent to steal
In order for the D to commit burglary he must enter as…
A trespasser
What was the principle in Collins (1972)?
The CofA quashed the defendants conviction for burglary as he couldn’t be a trespasser if he wasn’t aware of it and he wasn’t reckless in becoming a trespasser
If the D is given permission to enter a building but then goes beyond that permission, could he be considered a trespasser?
Yes
What is the principle for Smith and Jones (1976)?
If a person knows or is reckless at going beyond their permission they will be classed as a trespasser
Which case made it the law that anybody entering a shop intending to steal is going beyond the permission to enter the shop in order to buy goods?
Smith and Jones
Where a D gains entry to a building through fraud, is there genuine permission to enter?
No and so the D is a trespasser
What are the two parts to the mens rea of burglary?
-MR as to entering as a trespasser
-MR for the ulterior offence
If a D is entering a building to steal anything he can find inside which is valuable (conditional intent) is this sufficient for the D to be guilty of s9(1)(a)?
Yes it is sufficient for the D to be guilty under s9(1)(a) even if there is nothing worth taking and he doesn’t actually end up stealing anything
What was the principle in A-G Reference (Nos 1 and 2 of 1979)(1979)
The CofA held that the trial judge had made an error of law, conditional intention to steal whatever there is worth stealing is still intention to steal
