Burglary Criminal Law
Burglary
There are two primary offences of burglary:
Contrary to s9(1)(a) and 9(1)(b) TA 1968
S9(1)(a) Burglary:
Actus reus
1. D entered;
2. A building or part of a building
3. As a trespasser
Mens Rea
1. Knowing or being reckless that he was a trespasser
2. Knowing or being reckless that the structure was a building
3. With intent to steal , inflict grievous bodily harm or cause criminal damage to the building or
anything inside
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. AR – Entry:
What action on the part of the defendant constitutes ‘entry’?
R v Collins, 1973- “ effective and substantial”
The defendant, Collins, climbed up to the window of a young woman at 4:00 a.m. When
she awoke and saw him on her window sill. She mistook him for her boyfriend and
beckoned him in. They had sexual intercourse before she discovered he was not her
boyfriend. The defendant was convicted of burglary with intent to commit rape under
the Theft Act 1968. He subsequently appealed.
Held: The appeal was allowed, and the conviction quashed. Davis LJ said that to be a
trespasser under s.9(1)(a) Theft Act 1968 a person must enter either knowing that he is
trespassing or acting recklessly as to whether he is a trespasser or not. For the purposes
of criminal liability an accused should be judged on the facts as he believed them to be
and this should include mistake as to his liabilities under civil law. Due to the layout of
the room it was possible that the defendant believed the girl was inviting him inside
when she put her arms around him.
R v Brown, 1985- “ effective”
, Burglary Criminal Law
The defendant, Brown, broke a shop window and stuck the top half of his body through
the hole while rummaging about inside the shop in order to steal the contents. His lower
half remained outside the shop. He was arrested and convicted of burglary under s.9 of
the Theft Act 1968. He subsequently appealed against his conviction to the Court of
Appeal.
Held: Entry had to be ‘effective’ but the word ‘substantial’ was not considered to be of
additional help. Therefore, all that was required was either an ‘effective’ or a
‘substantial’ entry. Here, the entry was ‘effective’. Therefore, the offence was complete.
Entry could still be effective even if the defendant did not enter the premises with his
whole body. The defendant had entered with intent to steal. Therefore, the appeal was
dismissed.
R v Ryan, 1996- “partial entry was capable of constituting entry and the fact that D. Incapable of
stealing was irrelevant”
The defendant, Ryan, was discovered in the early hours of the morning stuck inside the
window of an elderly person’s house and had to be removed by the fire brigade. He had
managed only to get his head and one arm inside the window. He was convicted with
burglary and subsequently appealed against his conviction to the Court of Appeal.
Held: The fact that nothing was stolen was only because he had gotten stuck. In any case
it was irrelevant whether anything was actually stolen or not. The defendant’ partial
presence within the building amounted to entry under s.9(1) of the 1968 Act. The court
applied R v Brown [1985] Crim LR 212 and stated that a person could enter a building if
only a part of his body with actually inside the premises. The court agreed with the trial
judge’s finding that it was up to a jury to decide whether there was entry or not based
on the facts of the case.
What about entry of objects?
Richardson and Brown 1998
The appellant, a registered dentist, had her licence to practice suspended by the General
Dental Council in 1996 but continued to treat patients, whom she did not inform of the
suspension. On this basis, the appellant was charged with six counts of assault
occasioning actual bodily harm. The judge at trial ruled against the defence submission
that the patients treated by the appellant after her disqualification had consented to
their respective procedures, noting that the fraud as to her credentials vitiated any such
consent.
The Court of Appeal confirmed, allowing the appeal, that fraud only negated consent in
circumstances where the victim was deceived as to either the nature of the act
performed or the identity of those performing it. It was noted that lesser forms of
deception might suffice for a claim to damages in tort, however. Importantly, the Court
held that the phrase ‘identity of the person’ did not extend to that person’s
qualifications or attributes.
Horncastle 2006
Convicted of burglary and taking a vehicle without consent
Two bamboo canes with hooks were found in the nearby garden. It appeared that
entry had been gained using them to hook Mrs Gibson's house keys from a shelf
in the hallway.
Burglary
There are two primary offences of burglary:
Contrary to s9(1)(a) and 9(1)(b) TA 1968
S9(1)(a) Burglary:
Actus reus
1. D entered;
2. A building or part of a building
3. As a trespasser
Mens Rea
1. Knowing or being reckless that he was a trespasser
2. Knowing or being reckless that the structure was a building
3. With intent to steal , inflict grievous bodily harm or cause criminal damage to the building or
anything inside
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. AR – Entry:
What action on the part of the defendant constitutes ‘entry’?
R v Collins, 1973- “ effective and substantial”
The defendant, Collins, climbed up to the window of a young woman at 4:00 a.m. When
she awoke and saw him on her window sill. She mistook him for her boyfriend and
beckoned him in. They had sexual intercourse before she discovered he was not her
boyfriend. The defendant was convicted of burglary with intent to commit rape under
the Theft Act 1968. He subsequently appealed.
Held: The appeal was allowed, and the conviction quashed. Davis LJ said that to be a
trespasser under s.9(1)(a) Theft Act 1968 a person must enter either knowing that he is
trespassing or acting recklessly as to whether he is a trespasser or not. For the purposes
of criminal liability an accused should be judged on the facts as he believed them to be
and this should include mistake as to his liabilities under civil law. Due to the layout of
the room it was possible that the defendant believed the girl was inviting him inside
when she put her arms around him.
R v Brown, 1985- “ effective”
, Burglary Criminal Law
The defendant, Brown, broke a shop window and stuck the top half of his body through
the hole while rummaging about inside the shop in order to steal the contents. His lower
half remained outside the shop. He was arrested and convicted of burglary under s.9 of
the Theft Act 1968. He subsequently appealed against his conviction to the Court of
Appeal.
Held: Entry had to be ‘effective’ but the word ‘substantial’ was not considered to be of
additional help. Therefore, all that was required was either an ‘effective’ or a
‘substantial’ entry. Here, the entry was ‘effective’. Therefore, the offence was complete.
Entry could still be effective even if the defendant did not enter the premises with his
whole body. The defendant had entered with intent to steal. Therefore, the appeal was
dismissed.
R v Ryan, 1996- “partial entry was capable of constituting entry and the fact that D. Incapable of
stealing was irrelevant”
The defendant, Ryan, was discovered in the early hours of the morning stuck inside the
window of an elderly person’s house and had to be removed by the fire brigade. He had
managed only to get his head and one arm inside the window. He was convicted with
burglary and subsequently appealed against his conviction to the Court of Appeal.
Held: The fact that nothing was stolen was only because he had gotten stuck. In any case
it was irrelevant whether anything was actually stolen or not. The defendant’ partial
presence within the building amounted to entry under s.9(1) of the 1968 Act. The court
applied R v Brown [1985] Crim LR 212 and stated that a person could enter a building if
only a part of his body with actually inside the premises. The court agreed with the trial
judge’s finding that it was up to a jury to decide whether there was entry or not based
on the facts of the case.
What about entry of objects?
Richardson and Brown 1998
The appellant, a registered dentist, had her licence to practice suspended by the General
Dental Council in 1996 but continued to treat patients, whom she did not inform of the
suspension. On this basis, the appellant was charged with six counts of assault
occasioning actual bodily harm. The judge at trial ruled against the defence submission
that the patients treated by the appellant after her disqualification had consented to
their respective procedures, noting that the fraud as to her credentials vitiated any such
consent.
The Court of Appeal confirmed, allowing the appeal, that fraud only negated consent in
circumstances where the victim was deceived as to either the nature of the act
performed or the identity of those performing it. It was noted that lesser forms of
deception might suffice for a claim to damages in tort, however. Importantly, the Court
held that the phrase ‘identity of the person’ did not extend to that person’s
qualifications or attributes.
Horncastle 2006
Convicted of burglary and taking a vehicle without consent
Two bamboo canes with hooks were found in the nearby garden. It appeared that
entry had been gained using them to hook Mrs Gibson's house keys from a shelf
in the hallway.
