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
- Entry: Physical ingress into a building or part thereof.
- As a Trespasser: Without lawful permission or exceeding granted permission.
Mens Rea Components
-
Knowledge or Recklessness: Regarding one's status as a trespasser.
-
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.