Burglary

• Theft Act 1968, s.9 states:

  "(1) A person is guilty of burglary if:

  1. he enters any building or part of building as a trespasser and with intent to commit any such offences as is mentioned in subsection (2) below; or
  2. having entered any building or part of a building as a trespasser he steals or attempt to steal anything in the building or that part of it or inflicts or attempts to inflict on any person therein any grievous bodily harm."
• Subsection 2 offences (called ulterior offences):

  • Stealing
  • Inflicting GBH
  • Inflicting Criminal Damage
• Two type of burglary:

  s.9(1)(a)

  s.9(1)(b)
• s.9(1)(a):

  Defined as:

  Enter a Building as a

  Trespasser

  With intent to steal, damager

  or inflict GBH

  NO NEED FOR THESE ULTERIOR OFFENCES TO BE ACTUALLY COMMITTED
• s.9(1)(b):

  Defined as:

  Enter a Building as a Trespasser

  And once inside, commits

  Theft or GBH

  NO NEED FOR DEFENDANT

  TO INTEND THIS WHEN THEY

  ORIGINALLY ENTER
• Theft Act 1968, s.9 states:

  "(1) A person is guilty of burglary if:

  1. he 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) below; or
  2. having entered any building or part of a building as a trespasser he steals or attempts to steal anything in the building or that part of it or inflicts or attempts to inflict on any person therein any grievous bodily harm."
• Actus Reus - Burglary:

  Enter

  A building or part of a building

  As a Trespasser

  s.9(1)(b) ONLY --> commit or attempt to commit Theft or GBH once inside.
• Mens Rea - Burglary:

  Intention or recklessness to trespass

  s.9(1)(a) ONLY --> Intention ON ENTRY to commit Theft, GBH or Criminal Damage

  s.9(1)(b) ONLY --> Mens rea of Theft or GBH at point of committing or attempting it
• Actus Reus - Enter:

  • This states that the defendant must have "entered" the building.
  • Previously the law required on "effective entry"
  • R v Brown 1985 - D was guilty of burglary when he smashed the window of an Argos and leant in to take items. Even though only his arm had "entered" the building, this was an effective entry as it was enough to allow him to take things.
• Actus Reus - Enter:

  • Now all it seems is required is just any form of "entry".
  • R v Ryan 1996 - D tried to enter through a window, got his head and right arm through but became wedged so was unable to take anything and needed fire service to free him. He was still convicted of burglary even though his entry was not even effective.
• Actus Reus - A building or part of a building:

  • There is no clear definition of what is meant by a "building" - it clearly includes houses, offices and shops - but may be more than this too.
  • Stevens v Gourley 1859 - Defined this as "a structure of considerable size and intended to be permanent or at least to endure for a considerable time."
• Actus Reus - A building or part of a building:

  • The Theft Act 1968, s.9 (4) tells us that this includes: "Inhabited places i.e. houseboats and caravans which usually would not fall into the definition of a building".
  • R v Coleman 2013
  • R v Rodmell 1994
  • B&S v Leathey 1979
  • Seekings & Gould 1986
• Actus Reus - A building or part of a building:

  • R v Coleman 2013 - this was held to include narrowboats/ barges
  • R v Rodmell 1994 - this also includes a garden shed
  • B&S v Leathey 1979 - this included a freezer with doors and locks that was on sleepers and had an electricity supply.
  • Seekings & Gould 1986 - however did NOT include a lorry trailer with steps and on electricity supply - as it was on wheels.
• Actus Reus - A building or part of a building:

  • There is no clear definition of what is meant by a "building".
  • Also includes part of a building:
  • R v Walkington 1979 - D walked behind a till area in Debenhams and stole money from the till. Whilst D had permission to be inside the store - he did not have permission to be behind the till. Therefore when he entered the part of the building he was no allowed to be in (behind the till), he committed burglary.
• Actus Reus - As a trespasser:

  • A trespasser is someone who does not have 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 or burglary.
  • R v Collins 1972
• Actus Reus - As a trespasser:

  • R v Collins 1972 - D climed a ladder outside a girl's window. He climed down the ladder, took off his clothes apart from his socks, then climed the ladder, where she invited him inside. She mistakenly thought he was her boyfriend, and they had sex. He was charged with burglary, but was found not guilty. He was not a trespasser as she had given him permission to enter. This still stoop, even though she had been mistaken about his identity.
• Actus Reus - As a trespasser:

  • D will also be seen as trespasser if they have gone beyond the permission that has been given to them.
  • R v Smith & Jones 1976 - D and his friend went to D's father's house in night and took TV. Although he had permission to be in his father's house, he didn't have permission to be there in order to steal - he was classed as trespasser for this case because he had exceeded the permission given to him. He was GUILTY of burglary.
• Actus Reus - s.9(1)(b) ONLY - ulterior offence:

  • This only applies for s.9(1)(b) Burglary.
  • D must also commit one of the ulterior offences.
  • Includes Theft and GBH
  • Also includes attempts to commit these two offences.
• Mens Rea - Intention or recklessness to trespass:

  • this applies to BOTH types of burglary.
  • D must know they are trespassing OR be subjectively reckless as to whether they are trespassing.
  • R v Collins 1972
• Mens Rea - Intention or recklessness to trespass:

  • R v Collins 1972 - "there can not be a conviction for entering a premises as a trespasser, unless the person entering did so either knowing they were a trespasser or they were reckless as to whether or not they were entering a premises without the other persons consent".
• Mens Rea - s.9(1)(a) ONLY - intent ON ENTRY to commit ulterior offence:

  • This must exist when D enters the building.
  • For s.9(1)(a) all that is required is the intention to commit the offence when D enters the building.
  • D is still guilty of s.9(1)(a) even if they do not actually commit the offence.
  • The ulterior offences included here are:
  • Theft
  • GBH
  • Criminal Damage
• Mens Rea - s.9(1)(a) ONLY - intent ON ENTRY to commit ulterior offence:

  • includes conditional intent to commit those ulterior offences.
  • e.g. "I will steal something if there is anything worth stealing" or "I'll beat them up if they are in there".
  • AG'S Ref (1 & 2 of 1979)
• Mens Rea - s.9(1)(a) ONLY - intent ON ENTRY to commit ulterior offence:

  • AG's Ref (1 & 2 of 1979) - confirmed that conditional intent is included here. D entered a building and was caught looking for something of value to take. He was guilty of burglary - it was no defence that he only intended to steal if he found something of value.
• Mens Rea - s.9(1)(b) ONLY - mens rea of ulterior offence:

  • This does not need to exist on entry - it is only needed at the point the offence is committed.
  • s.9(1)(b) burglary is designed to cover opportunistic crimes, where D only decides to commit an offence after having entered as a trespasser.
• Mens Rea - s.9(1)(b) ONLY - mens rea of ulterior offence:

  • Therefore they do not need intent on entry - instead they only need the mens rea (can be intention or recklessness) for the ulterior crime when they commit it.
  • Crimes includes here are:
  • Theft or Attempted Theft
  • GBH or Attempted GBH