s. 9 Theft Act 1968 - Burglary Flashcards
(10 cards)
Under s 9(1)(a) TA 1968, burglary is committed at the moment of:
A. Entry as a trespasser with intent to steal, inflict GBH or damage
B. Theft or GBH once inside
C. Exiting the building after theft
D. Causing fear of force
A. Entry as a trespasser with intent to steal, inflict GBH or damage
Explanation: Section 9(1)(a) makes the offence complete on entry as a trespasser with intent to commit one of the ulterior offences (theft, GBH, or unlawful damage), regardless of whether that ulterior offence actually occurs
D slips through a broken window (head and arm inside) intending only to look for valuables, then steals a watch. Has he committed s 9(1)(a) burglary?
A. No – partial entry isn’t sufficient
B. No – intent formed after entry
C. Yes – partial entry counts and conditional intent suffices
D. Yes – but only if he also inflicts GBH
C. Yes – partial entry counts and conditional intent suffices
Explanation: “Entry” requires only part of the body (R v Ryan), and “conditional intent” (steal if worthwhile) satisfies the ulterior-offence intent (AG’s Ref No 1 & 2 of 1979)
Which of these is not one of the ulterior offences in s 9(2) TA 1968 for a s 9(1)(a) burglary?
A. Theft
B. Grievous bodily harm
C. Unlawful damage
D. Assault without injury
D. Assault without injury
Explanation: s 9(2) lists only theft, infliction of GBH, and unlawful damage as the ulterior offences for s 9(1)(a); a simple assault (without GBH) is not included
D has lawful access to a shop but goes into the staff-only storeroom and steals stock. Which element makes it burglary?
A. Trespass by exceeding permission
B. Use of force
C. Carrying a weapon
D. Breaking a lock
A. Trespass by exceeding permission
Explanation: Exceeding the scope of any permission makes entry a trespass (R v Jones & Smith), satisfying the “as a trespasser” requirement
D enters a house as a trespasser, then signals an accomplice outside to throw in a crowbar, which D uses to pry a safe open. Which limb applies and when is the offence committed?
A. s 9(1)(a) on entry, because intent existed at entry
B. s 9(1)(b) on theft or attempt to steal from the safe
C. s 9(1)(a) when crowbar arrives
D. s 9(1)(b) on entry
B. s 9(1)(b) on theft or attempt to steal from the safe
Explanation: Because the crowbar (and intent to use it) arises after entry, the burglary is under s 9(1)(b) and is complete when D actually steals or attempts the theft .
D sneaks into a building as a trespasser with intention only to vandalise. Once inside, he unexpectedly sees cash and steals it. Which limb and MR apply?
A. s 9(1)(a) with intent to damage
B. s 9(1)(b) with full theft AR/MR
C. s 9(1)(a) with hindsight theft intent
D. No burglary, because intent changed
B. s 9(1)(b) with full theft AR/MR
Explanation: Entering as a trespasser without initial intent to steal is not s 9(1)(a); when D steals inside, it becomes s 9(1)(b), requiring full AR/MR of theft (dishonesty + intent to deprive)
What is the maximum sentence for burglary of a non-dwelling on indictment under s 9 TA 1968?
A. 7 years
B. 10 years
C. 14 years
D. Life
B. 10 years
Explanation: s 9(3)(b) sets the maximum for non-dwellings at 10 years; for dwellings it rises to 14 years (s 9(3)(a))
Which of these is not required for s 9(1)(b) burglary?
A. Entry as a trespasser
B. Theft or attempted theft (or GBH) once inside
C. Intent to commit an ulterior offence at entry
D. Knowledge or recklessness as to trespass
C. Intent to commit an ulterior offence at entry
Explanation: s 9(1)(b) requires only entry as a trespasser (knowing/reckless as to trespass) and then committing theft or GBH; there is no need for an ulterior-offence intent at entry
Which of the following is likely to qualify as a “building” under s 9 TA 1968?
A. A shipping container detached from its chassis, in place for two years with electricity laid on
B. A pair of temporary metal containers on wheels behind a supermarket, used for short-term storage
C. A tent erected in a field for a one-day event
D. A caravan visited briefly by its owner
A. A shipping container detached from its chassis, in place for two years with electricity laid on
Explanation: The Court of Appeal in B&S v Leathley held that a freezer container detached from its chassis, resting on sleepers for two years and fitted with electricity was a “building”. By contrast, in Seekings & Gould a similar wheeled container used temporarily was not
D enters a building as a trespasser “to see if there’s anything worth stealing” and, finding a laptop, takes it. Under s 9(1)(a), is D’s intent sufficient?
A. No – intent must be to steal regardless of value
B. No – intent must specify which ulterior offence before entry
C. Yes – but only if D had intended to inflict GBH if resisted
D. Yes – a conditional intention (“if worthwhile, I’ll steal it”) counts
D. Yes – a conditional intention (“if worthwhile, I’ll steal it”) counts
Explanation: The Court of Appeal held in Attorney-General’s References (Nos 1 & 2 of 1979) that a “conditional intent” to commit one of the ulterior offences (e.g. “steal if there’s anything worth taking”) at the moment of entry satisfies the mens rea for s 9(1)(a) burglary
