BURGLARY

1
Topic 14
Burglary
2
Introduction

• Burglary is defined in the Theft Act 1968.
  According to s.9(1), a person is guilty of
  burglary if
• he or she enters any building or part of a
  building as a trespasser and with intent to
  commit any such offence as mentioned in s.9(2)
  (stealing, inflicting grievous bodily harm or
  causing criminal damage), or
• (b) having entered any building or part of a
  building as a trespasser, he or she steals or
  attempts to steal anything in the building or
  that part of it or inflicts or attempts to
  inflict on any person therein any grievous bodily
  harm

3
Actus reus (1)
Entry The actus reus of burglary requires the
defendant to have entered the building (R v
Collins, 1973 R v Brown, 1985 R v Ryan, 1996).
4
Actus reus (2)
The definition of building The type of building
that is burgled affects the length of sentence
that the defendant will receive. Building is
discussed in s.9(4) of the Theft Act
1968 References in subsections (1) and (2)
above to a buildingshall also apply to an
inhabited vehicle or vessel, and shall apply to
any such vehicle or vessel at times when the
person having a habitation in it is not there as
well as at times when he is.
5
Actus reus (3)

• Stevens v Gourley (1859)
• Judge Byles defined a building as a structure of
  considerable size and intended to be permanent or
  at least endure for a considerable time.

6
Actus reus (4)
Part of a building R v Walkington (1979) The
defendant went into a department store. He went
behind the till to look in an open cash register.
When he saw that there was nothing in it he
closed the drawer. The defendant was charged with
burglary under s.9(1)(a). His conviction was
upheld, as the Court of Appeal believed that what
constitutes part of a building is a question of
fact for the jury to decide.
7
Actus reus (5)
The requirement of a trespass If the defendant
has permission to enter a building or part of a
building, he or she is not a trespasser. However,
the defendant will be a trespasser if he or she
goes beyond the permission given to him or
her. In R v Jones and Smith (1976), the defendant
had permission to enter his parents house, but
when he did so in the middle of the night with
his friend and took two television sets, the
court held that he was a trespasser. The Court of
Appeal said A person is a trespasser if he
enters premises of another knowing that he is
entering in excess of the permission that he has
been given to him to enter, or being reckless
whether he is in excess of that permission.
8
Mens rea
The mens rea of burglary requires the defendant
to either intend or be reckless that he or she is
a trespasser. In order to have the mens rea for
s.9(1)(a), he or she must intend to commit one of
the ulterior offences in s.9(2) causing
criminal damage, stealing or inflicting grievous
bodily harm. Section 9(1)(b) requires that the
defendant have the required mens rea for the
offence when he or she commits it or attempts to
commit it. He or she need not have the mens rea
for the offence at the time of entry.
9
Evaluation

• There is no definition of building.
• The ulterior offences are confusing for the
  jury.
• The interpretation of entry and trespasser
  has changed many times.