Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
burglary - Coggle Diagram
burglary
actus reus
enter
not defined in statue, according to Ryan (1996) 'entry' does not necessarily have to be 'effective or substantial'
building
'building' is generally quite straightforward, issues arise when a structure that could be inhabited is used for storage or office work. B and S v Leathley (1979)- it was a building it had locked doors and electricity. Norfolk Constabulry v Seekings and Gould (1986)- it was not a building as it had wheels (despite having electric)
part of a building
this is used where the defendant has permission to be in one part of building (and therefore not a trespasser) but does not have permission to be in another part- Walkington (1979)
as a trespasser
is somebody has permission to be there then he is not a trespasser, Collings (1972). however, if the defendant has permission to enter but then goes beyond that permission, then they may be a trespasser. in Smith and Jones (1976) the defendants 'entered in excess of their permission'
overview
-
s.9(1)(b)
s.9 (1)(b) 'a person is guilty of burglary if, having entered the building or part of a building as a trespasser, he steals or attempts to steal anything in the building or inflicts or attempts to inflict grievous bodily harm on any person in the building
-
s.9(1)(a)
s.9(1)(a) 'a person is guilty of burglary is he enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser with intent to steal, inflict grievous bodily harm or do unlawful damage to the building or anything in it
-
mens rea
s.9(1)(a) intention or recklessness as to being a trespasser. intention to commit theft, GBH, unlawful damage. this includes conditional intent
-
additional actus reus
for s.9(1)(b) there is an additional part of the actus reus which you must discuss; theft or attempted theft, GBH or attempted GBH