Burglary Offences
Elements
Key Cases
Sections 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(b)
Building or part of a building
Trespasser
Section 9(1)(a)
Section 9(1)(b)
A person is guilty of burglary if he enters a building or part of a building as a trespasser with intent to commit theft, GBH or criminal damage.
Mens Rea
A person is guilty of burglary if having entered any building or part of a building as a trespasser he steals or inflicts GBH or attempts either.
Mens Rea
Ryan
Norfolk Constabulary v Seekings
B&S Leathley
Walkington
Jones & Smith
Brown
Entry
Actus Reus
The mens rea of 9(1)(a) burglary is simply proof of an intention to commit one of the 3 ulterior offences. Intent to commit theft, GBH or criminal damage.
PLUS knowledge that they are a trespasser or recklessness (realising the risk and going on to take that risk - Cunningham)
Actus Reus
Mens Rea for theft or GBH
PLUS knowledge that they are a trespasser or recklessness (realising the risk and going on to take that risk - Cunningham)
There is no definition in the 1968 Act of entry. Initially the courts ruled that an entry had to be “substantial and effective” - Collins (1973). Later, the courts simplified this to an “effective entry” - Brown (1985).
The test used by the courts today has been further simplified.
In Ryan (1996) the court stated that the jury must simply be satisfied that there was “an entry”. Whether there has been an entry is a question for the jury.
The term building is not defined by the Act but has been interpreted to require a degree of permanence.
Meaning of building: Although section 9 does not provide a definition of a building, section 9(4) does give some specific guidance. It states that a building can include “an inhabited vehicle or vessel”. So, it appears that the term ‘building’ would cover houses, flats, offices, warehouses, factories etc. It would also cover things such as outbuildings, garages and sheds.
The person who enters the building (or part of a building) must do so as a trespasser.
For the purpose of burglary trespass is entry without permission or exceeding permission.
For example, in Walkington the defendant had permission to be in the store but not behind the counter (an unauthorised area).
The defendant was found wedged in the kitchen window of the home belonging to an elderly man. His head and right arm were inside the property but the rest of his body was outside. The fire brigade had to be called to remove him. He was convicted of burglary and appealed on the grounds that there had been no effective entry.
Two lorry trailers were being used as storage space in a Budgen's supermarket during refurbishment. They had been in place for about a year and were still on wheels.
The defendant was in Debenhams department store. He saw a till which was partially opened and left unattended. He reached behind the counter and looked into the till but it was empty. He was charged with burglary under s.9(1)(a) for entering a part of a building with intent to steal. He was convicted and appealed contending that the counter which is not physically separated from the rest of the store can not amount to a part of a building.
The two appellants went to the home of one of their parents and stole two television sets. The father gave evidence stating that his son had permission to be in his house.
Entry of a building or part of a building with intent to steal, commit GBH or criminal damage.
Actus reus - entry of a building or part of a building as a trespasser - already explained above
A person is guilty of burglary is having entered any building or part of a building as a trespasser he steals or attempts to steal or inflicts GBH or attempts to inflict GBH.
Basics of theft - s.1 Theft Act 1968 AR – appropriation (s.3) of property (s.4) belonging to another (s.5) (add a few with your application). MR - dishonesty - negative definition s.2 plus Ivey v Genting Test where appropriate and intent to permanently deprive the other of the property (s.6).
If GBH has occurred just say that burglary only requires GBH contrary to s.20 OAPA 1861 (Jenkins). Provided the injuries are serious, they will amount to GBH. The mens rea for section 20 must be established - that the D intended (aim or purpose) to cause some harm or that he was at least reckless with regards to whether some harm might occur (realised risk + still went ahead to take that risk).
Collins
The defendant was charged with burglary. He had climbed a ladder to an open window where a young woman was sleeping naked in her bed. He descended the ladder and stripped down to his socks then climbed up again. The woman awoke and saw him at the window. She thought it was her boyfriend so invited him in. It was not clear, and neither party could recall whether he was inside or outside the window when she invited him in. They proceeded to have sexual intercourse. She then realised it was not her boyfriend and screamed for him to get off. He ran off. The following day he was questioned by the police and charged with burglary under s.9(1)(a) on the grounds that he entered as a trespasser with the intent to commit rape. (He could not be charged with rape as the woman had consented to sexual intercourse). The jury convicted. The defendant appealed on the grounds of a misdirection as the jury had not been asked to consider if he was a trespasser at the time of entry.
Held: His conviction was quashed. It was held that there must be an effective and substantial entry with knowledge or being reckless as to being a trespasser. Consent of the home owner (the girl's parents) was not required it was sufficient that the girl had invited him in.
Held: His conviction was upheld. There was no requirement to have a physical separation. The counter area was clearly out of bounds to the public and thus he was a trespasser in that part of the building.
Held: These did not amount to a building.
Held: His conviction was upheld. The question had been correctly put to the jury.
Held: The appellants had exceeded their permission by stealing and were thus trespassers.
The appellant appealed against his conviction for burglary. He or another with him had smashed the window of the Argos shop. He had leaned in and taken goods. The appellant argued that following Collins an entry into a building had to be substantial and effective and as his feet were still on the pavement outside the building there was no substantial entry.
His conviction was upheld. The entry need not be substantial provided it is effective.
A lorry container was resting on sleepers and used as refrigeration storage. It was connected to the electricity supply and had been in the same place 2-3 years.
The container did constitute a building for the purposes of the Theft Act 1968.
Lord Justice Edmund Davies: "Unless the jury were entirely satisfied that the Appellant made an effective and substantial entry into the bedroom without the complainant doing or saying anything to cause him to believe that she was consenting to his entering it, he ought not to be convicted of the offence charged."