Burglary Essay Model Answer

• Prima facie, the defendant (state name), could be charged with the offence of burglary under s.9 of the Theft Act 1968 for (apply).
• There are three elements to the actus reus of burglary: enters, a building/part of a building and finally as a trespasser.
• The first element of the actus reus is 'enters/entry.' The question of what amounts to 'enters' was originally considered in Collins as 'effective and substantial.' It was then adapted in Brown where it was decided that entry did not need to be substantial, only 'effective.' The later case of Ryan has confirmed that the terms entry should be given its ordinary meaning and is a matter for the jury to decide.
• (D's name) must have entered a building or part of a building. A building is defined in Stevens v Gourley as a 'structure of considerable size.. intended to be permanent.' S.9(4) of the Theft Act 1968 gives an extended meaning to the word building so that it includes inhabited places such as houseboats or caravans and the case of R v Rodmell illustrates that a shed can also be included.
• The defendant could have also entered part of a building which is when a building is open to public access such as a shop, library, college etc. The defendant must then be charged with entering the part of the building which is off limits even if he is inside a building otherwise open to the public (Walkington).
• The D must have entered the building/part of a building as a trespasser. This means entering without permission or entering unlawfully. If a person has permission to enter then they are not a trespasser as illustrated in R v Collins. The defendant could also gone beyond the permission authorised as in R v Smith and Jones or if they only had permission for a certain amount of time/purpose e.g. at a concert.
• Mens rea must also be established.

  Firstly, it needs to be decided if there was intentional or reckless trespassing. Intentional trespassing is where the d knew they were a trespasser and did not have permission whereas reckless trespassing is where there was a risk the defendant could be a trespasser and not have permission but proceeded anyway.
• There are two ways burglary can be committed: under s.9(1)(a) and s.9(1)(b) and the second part of the mens rea will differ depending on which one it is.

  Under s.9(1)(a), a person is guilty of burglary if he enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser with the intention to steal; inflict GBH or commit criminal damage or

  Under s.9(1)(b), a person is guilty of burglary if, having entered any building or part of building as a trespasser, he steals or attempts to steal or inflicts poor attempts to inflict GBH.
• The issue as to whether the defendant is guilty of s.9(1)(a) is determined by whether they intended, at the time of entry, to commit any of the ulterior offences of theft, GBH or criminal damage - although it is irrelevant whether they do go on to commit those offences.
• For s.9(1)(b), the D does not commit burglary unless, having entered, they actually do then go on to commit, or at least to attempt, either theft or GBH.
• In conclusion, the D (name) is/is not guilty of burglary under s.9(1)(a) and/or under s.9(1)(b). Burglary is a triable-either-way offence so as it has taken place (dwelling or not) the maximum sentence that the defendant (name) would be given, if convicted, would be 14 or 10 years.