Burglary (s.9 Theft Act 1968)

Can You Answer This?

Practice with real exam questions

Harriet agrees to feed her friend’s cat while the friend is on holiday, receiving a key to access the house for that specific purpose. Harriet enters the house lawfully on a Tuesday evening and notices a valuable painting in the living room. She had not considered stealing anything beforehand but, upon seeing the painting, spontaneously decides to take it. Unbeknownst to her, the friend would never have permitted removing items beyond the agreed scope of cat-feeding. Harriet carefully removes the painting and places it in her car before leaving.


Which of the following statements best reflects Harriet’s potential liability for burglary under the Theft Act 1968?

Introduction

Burglary, under section 9 of the Theft Act 1968, is a property offence involving unlawful entry into a building with intent to commit an offence. It includes specific elements of actus reus and mens rea that differentiate it from other criminal offences. The offence is delineated into two main categories: burglary under s.9(1)(a) and s.9(1)(b), each with distinct requirements concerning the timing of intent and the actions undertaken within the premises. Understanding these distinctions is fundamental for a comprehensive understanding of the legal principles governing burglary.

Understanding Burglary Under s.9

The Two Forms of Burglary

Burglary under s.9(1)(a)

A person is guilty under s.9(1)(a) if they enter a building or part of a building as a trespasser with the intent to commit theft, grievous bodily harm (GBH), or criminal damage. The key factor is that the intent exists at the time of entry.

Burglary under s.9(1)(b)

Under s.9(1)(b), the offence occurs when, having entered as a trespasser, the individual commits or attempts to commit theft or GBH. Here, the intent to commit the further offence is formed after entry.

Key Elements Defined

Entry

The concept of "entry" has been shaped by case law:

  • Partial Entry Suffices: In R v Brown (1985), leaning into a shop window was considered entry.
  • Ineffective Entry: R v Ryan (1996) established that even minimal entry, such as getting stuck while attempting to enter, fulfills this element.

Trespasser

A trespasser is someone who enters without permission or legal authority:

  • Knowledge or Recklessness: The individual must know or be reckless about the lack of consent (R v Collins [1973]).
  • Exceeding Permission: Entering with permission but exceeding the scope, as in R v Jones and Smith (1976), makes one a trespasser.

Building or Part of a Building

The term "building" includes:

  • Permanent Structures: Houses, offices, and shops.
  • Inhabited Vehicles or Vessels: Under s.9(4), structures like caravans or houseboats used as dwellings (R v Coleman [2013]).
  • Exclusions: Temporary structures like tents are generally not considered buildings.

Actus Reus and Mens Rea Interaction

Actus Reus Components

  1. Entry: Physical ingress into a building or part thereof.
  2. As a Trespasser: Without lawful permission or exceeding granted permission.

Mens Rea Components

  1. Knowledge or Recklessness: Regarding one's status as a trespasser.

  2. Intent to Commit an Offence:

    • For s.9(1)(a): Intent must exist at the time of entry.
    • For s.9(1)(b): Offence is committed after entry, irrespective of initial intent.

Illustrative Scenario

Consider Sam, who enters a neighbor's unlocked garage to retrieve a borrowed tool. While inside, Sam notices a valuable bicycle and decides to take it. Initially, Sam didn't intend to steal, but formed the intent after entering. Under s.9(1)(b), Sam is guilty of burglary because the theft occurred after trespass. If Sam had entered intending to steal, it would fall under s.9(1)(a).

Significant Case Law

R v Collins [1973] QB 100

  • Principle: Clarified the requirement for the defendant to know or be reckless about trespassing.
  • Outcome: A mistaken belief of consent negates trespass.

R v Walkington [1979] 1 WLR 1169

  • Principle: Establishes that entering a prohibited area within a building constitutes trespass.
  • Outcome: Entering a staff-only area with intent to steal fulfilled burglary elements.

R v Jones and Smith [1976] 1 WLR 672

  • Principle: Even with general permission to enter, exceeding the scope for unlawful purposes makes one a trespasser.
  • Outcome: Defendants were trespassers in their parent’s home when intending to steal.

Defences and Mitigating Factors

While burglary is a serious offence, certain factors can influence liability:

  • Mistaken Belief: A genuine belief in having permission can negate the mens rea.
  • Intoxication: Voluntary intoxication might affect specific intent under s.9(1)(a) but is generally not a defence.
  • Duress: Coercion may be a valid defence if the defendant was under immediate threat.

Practical Applications

Sentencing Considerations

  • Domestic Burglary: Involves a dwelling, with a maximum sentence of 14 years.
  • Non-Domestic Burglary: Pertains to other buildings, carrying up to 10 years.

Modern Contexts

The definition of "building" has adapted to contemporary living:

  • Inhabited Vehicles: R v Coleman recognized a narrowboat as a building.
  • Mobile Dwellings: R v Keeling (2022) extended this to vans used as living spaces.

Digital Age Reflections

While burglary currently requires physical entry, the rise of cyber trespass raises questions about legal interpretations adapting to technological advancements.

Conclusion

The offence of burglary under s.9 of the Theft Act 1968 is characterized by the complex interplay between entry, trespass, and intent. The distinction between s.9(1)(a) and s.9(1)(b) hinges on the timing of the intent to commit an ulterior offence. Case law, such as R v Collins and R v Walkington, provides clarity on how these elements are interpreted and applied.

The extension of the term "building" to include inhabited vehicles and vessels under s.9(4) demonstrates the law's adaptability to different living situations. Understanding what constitutes entry and trespass is fundamental, as is recognizing the defendant's mental state regarding their actions.

Legal practitioners must carefully analyze the specifics of each case, considering how the statutory elements and judicial interpretations converge. The principles governing burglary not only establish the framework for prosecution but also guide defence strategies and sentencing decisions.

By thoroughly comprehending these components, one can expertly manage the complexities of burglary offences, ensuring that legal outcomes align with the established statutes and precedents.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Barbri SQE
One-time Fee
$3,800-6,900
BPP SQE
One-time Fee
$5,400-8,200
College of Legal P...
One-time Fee
$2,300-9,100
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350
Law Training Centr...
One-time Fee
$500-6,200
QLTS SQE
One-time Fee
$2,500-3,800
University of Law...
One-time Fee
$6,200-22,400

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of December 2024. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

Practice. Learn. Excel.

Features designed to support your job and test preparation

Question Bank

Access 100,000+ questions that adapt to your performance level and learning style.

Performance Analytics

Track your progress across topics and identify knowledge gaps with comprehensive analytics and insights.

Multi-Assessment Support

Prepare for multiple exams simultaneously, from academic tests to professional certifications.

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal