2.2.3 Burglary (s.9 Theft Act 1968)

Statutory Definition

• s.9(1)(a):
  • “A person is guilty of burglary if he enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser with intent to commit any such offence as is mentioned in subsection (2).”
• s.9(2):
  • The offences referred to are: stealing anything in the building or part of the building, inflicting on any person therein any grievous bodily harm, or doing unlawful damage to the building or anything therein.
• Burglary is therefore divided into two main categories under the Act:
  1. s.9(1)(a): Entry as trespasser with intent at time of entry to commit theft, GBH, or criminal damage.
  2. s.9(1)(b): (not covered here yet) Entry as trespasser and then commits/attempts theft or GBH.

Actus Reus of s.9(1)(a)

The actus reus consists of three key elements:

1. Entry

• Entry must be effective (though not necessarily complete).
• Case: R v Collins [1973] QB 100
  • D climbed ladder into woman’s bedroom, she mistakenly thought he was her boyfriend and invited him in. Conviction quashed — unclear whether he entered as trespasser or with consent. Established entry must be “effective and substantial.”
• Case: R v Brown [1985] Crim LR 212
  • D leaning through shop window rummaging goods. Court held entry need only be “effective” — substantial not necessary.
• Case: R v Ryan [1996] Crim LR 320
  • D trapped half-way through window, could not steal anything. Held: still entry, even if ineffective in practice.
• Principle: Entry can be partial or awkward — effectiveness matters, not ability to steal.

Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia, World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 7 Distinctions and 11 World Records For Educate A Change AS Level Law Full Scale Course

2. Building or Part of a Building

• “Building” interpreted widely to include houses, shops, offices, sheds, factories.
• s.9(4): Includes inhabited vehicles/vessels (e.g., caravans, houseboats).
• Case: B & S v Leathley [1979] Crim LR 314
  • 25-foot freezer container with lock and electricity supply = building.
• Case: Norfolk Constabulary v Seekings & Gould [1986]
  • Lorry trailer used for storage on wheels = not a building. Mobility mattered.
• Part of a building: Even lawful entry into one part can become trespass in another.
• Case: R v Walkington [1979] 1 WLR 1169
  • D entered shop with permission but went behind till area. Court: part of building where he had no permission → burglary.

3. Trespasser

• Entry must be as trespasser = without permission or exceeding permission given.
• Case: R v Collins [1973] – Consent removes trespass (unless fraudulently obtained).
• Case: R v Jones & Smith [1976] 1 WLR 672
  • D entered father’s house at night and stole TV. Permission to be there did not extend to entering “for theft.” Court: exceeded permission → trespasser.

Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia, World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 7 Distinctions and 11 World Records For Educate A Change AS Level Law Full Scale Course

Mens Rea of s.9(1)(a)

1. Mens rea as trespasser:
   • D must know, or be reckless, as to whether entry is trespass.
   • Collins confirms this.
2. Mens rea of ulterior offence (at time of entry):
   • D must intend at the moment of entry to commit theft, GBH, or criminal damage (listed in s.9(2)).
   • Conditional intent is sufficient:
     • Case: Attorney-General’s Reference (Nos 1 & 2 of 1979)
       • D entered buildings intending to steal “if anything worth taking.” Held: conditional intent still satisfies mens rea for burglary.

Examples of s.9(1)(a)

• Breaking into warehouse intending to steal goods = burglary.
• Entering house as trespasser intending to cause damage (e.g., smashing property) = burglary.
• Entering school at night intending to commit GBH on security guard = burglary.

Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia, World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 7 Distinctions and 11 World Records For Educate A Change AS Level Law Full Scale Course

Actus Reus and Mens Rea Interaction

• Important that intent must exist at the moment of entry.
• If D enters with no intent, but later decides to steal, offence falls under s.9(1)(b), not s.9(1)(a).

Evaluation of s.9(1)(a)

• Strengths:
  • Wide definition ensures property protection.
  • Covers conditional intent, preventing loopholes where burglars “look for opportunity.”
  • Trespass rule prevents liability for lawful visitors.
• Weaknesses:
  • Definition of “entry” stretched too far (Ryan trapped case criticised as absurd).
  • Ambiguity over what counts as “part of a building.”
  • Risk of criminalising minor trespasses with little harm if coupled with intent.

Sentencing for Burglary (briefly, for context)

• s.9(3) Theft Act 1968:
  • Burglary in dwelling: max life imprisonment.
  • Burglary in other buildings: max 10 years.
• Courts sentence according to aggravating/mitigating factors (weapons, planning, vulnerability of victim, value stolen).

Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia, World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 7 Distinctions and 11 World Records For Educate A Change AS Level Law Full Scale Course

Exam Application Strategy

1. State statutory definition (s.9(1)(a) + s.9(2)).
2. Analyse actus reus:
   • Entry (Collins, Brown, Ryan).
   • Building/part (B & S v Leathley, Walkington).
   • Trespass (Collins, Jones & Smith).
3. Apply mens rea:
   • Knowledge/recklessness as trespasser.
   • Intent at entry to commit theft, GBH, or damage (AG’s Ref 1979).
4. Discuss conditional intent.
5. Conclude whether burglary (s.9(1)(a)) proven.

Conclusion

• Burglary under s.9(1)(a) requires proof of entry into a building/part as trespasser with intent at time of entry to commit theft, GBH, or criminal damage (s.9(2)).
• Case law developed broad interpretations of “entry” and “trespass,” sometimes criticised for stretching boundaries.
• Still, law ensures strong protection against unlawful intrusion with criminal intent.