Burglary

Question 1

Burglary- Two Offences

Answer 1

There are two separate offences under the Theft Act 1968 s 9:
* Section 9(1)(a) – entering a building or part of a building as a trespasser with intent to commit theft,
grievous bodily harm or criminal damage.
* Section 9(1)(b) – having entered as a trespasser, stealing or inflicting or attempting to inflict grievous
bodily harm.

Question 2

Elements of burglary

Answer 2

Entry
Building
Trespasser

Question 3

Entry

Answer 3

‘Entry’ is not defined in the Theft Act 1968, entry was said to mean an effective entry.this is demonstated in case of R V Brown additionally this can be seen in the case of R v Ryan a partial entry is enough to amount to entry. If a defendant puts any part of his body

Question 4

‘Building or part of a building’ (s 9(4))

Answer 4

The Theft Act 1968 s 9(4) gives an extended meaning to the word ‘building’ so that it includes inhabited
places such as houseboats or caravans.this can be seen in the case of B and S v Leathley. a 25-foot-long freezer container had been kept as a storage unit in a farmyard for over two years. It rested on sleepers, had doors with locks and was connected to the electricity supply. This was held to
be a building

Question 5

Part of a building

Answer 5

The phrase ‘part of building’ is used to cover situations in which the defendant may have permission
to be in one part of the building (and therefore is not a trespasser in that part) but does not have
permission to be in another part. This can be seen in R V walkington where The defendant went into the counter area in a shop and opened a till. This area was clearly marked by a three-sided counter. The defendant’s conviction for burglary under s 9(1)(a) was upheld as he had
entered part of a building (the counter area) as a trespasser with the intention of stealing

Question 6

As a Trespasser

Answer 6

In order for the defendant to commit burglary, he or she must enter as a trespasser. If a person has
permission to enter, they are not a trespasser. The prosecution must prove that the defendant knew they
were trespassing or was subjectively reckless as to whether they were trespassing.
Where a defendant is given permission to enter but then goes beyond that permission, they may be
considered a trespasser. This was decided in R V jones and smith where Smith and his friend, Jones, went to Smith’s father’s house in the middle of the night and took two
television 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 Court of Appeal upheld their
convictions for burglary, stating:
“ a person is a trespasser for the purpose of s 9(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. ”

Question 7

mens rea of burglary

Answer 7

For both s 9(1)(a) and s 9(1)(b), the defendant must know, or be subjectively reckless, as to whether
they are trespassing.
2 There is a difference between the subsections:
* For s 9(1)(a), the defendant must have the intention to commit one of the three offences of theft,
grievous bodily harm or criminal damage at the time of entering the building. Where the defendant
enters intending to steal anything they can find which is worth taking, then this is called a
conditional intent. This is sufficient for them to be guilty under s 9(1)(a), even if there is nothing
worth taking and they do not actually steal anything.
* For s 9(1)(b), the defendant must also have the committing (or attempting to commit) the
mens rea
actus reus