"Enters" Although physical evidence of entry is not normally difficult to obtain, it can be difficult on occasions to decide whether an entry has occurred in law. In
R v Collins, it was held that entry had to be "substantial" and "effective". The issue arose in
R v Brown (1985) 71
Cr App R 15 in which the defendant had been found on the
pavement outside a shop with the top half of his body through the broken window, sorting through property on display for sale; this was held by the
Court of Appeal to constitute an effective entry, while regarding the use of the word "substantial" as unnecessarily wide. It was ruled that the jury had been entitled to conclude that the entry had been effective. Furthermore, in
R v Ryan (1996) 160 JP 610, the defendant had been found partially within a building, having been trapped by a window, and argued that this was not a sufficient entry. However, he was convicted as it was held that a partial entry was sufficient and that it was irrelevant that he was due to circumstances incapable of stealing anything.
"Building or part of a building" The Theft Act 1968 does not define a building, so this must be a matter of fact for the jury, however, Section 9(4) specifically states that the term includes an "inhabited vehicle or vessel"; hence motor homes, caravans and houseboats are protected by the section even when temporarily unoccupied. Burglary can also be committed in "part of a building" and in
R v Walkington 1979 1 WLR 1169 the defendant had entered a large shop during trading hours but went behind a counter and put his hand in an empty
till. The court held that he had entered that part of the building normally reserved for staff as a trespasser with intention to steal money and was therefore guilty of burglary.
"As a trespasser" The essence of
trespass is entering or remaining in another's property without authority; a person having permission to enter property for one purpose who in fact enters for another purpose may become a trespasser, and in
R v Jones & Smith, a defendant who had a general permission to enter his father's home became a trespasser when he did so in order to steal a television set, because doing so was inconsistent with the general permission. In recent years, the terms "distraction burglary", "artifice burglary" and "burglary by trick" have been used in crime prevention circles when access to premises is granted as a result of some deception on the occupier, usually by a pretence that the burglar represents some body who might reasonably request access such as a water, gas or electricity supplier. There is no separate legal definition of this variant.
"With intent" The intention to commit an offence (theft, grievous bodily harm or, for s9(1)(a), criminal damage), being an essential element of burglary, requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. For example, if entry is made to regain property which the defendant honestly believes he has a legal right to take, there is no intention to steal and the defendant is entitled to be acquitted. However, it has been held that a conditional intent to steal anything found to be of value is enough to satisfy this requirement.
Mens Rea R v Collins is authority for the proposition that the defendant must at least be reckless as to whether his entry is a trespass. For the Section 9(1)(a) offence, proof beyond reasonable doubt is required that the defendant intended to commit the offence specified as part of the burglary. In the Section 9(1)(b) offence, the
mens rea is that of the offence committed, such that, for example, if grievous bodily harm is inflicted, recklessness will be sufficient to establish liability. == Allocation & Sentence ==