• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

A2 Law burglary question. Eddie may have committed the offence of Burglary.

Extracts from this document...


´╗┐Tajinder Singh Ranshi A2 Law ? Burglary Question Discuss The Criminal Liability of Eddie? Eddie may have committed the offence of Burglary. This is an offence under Section 9 of the Theft Act 1968. There are two types of Burglary, there is one under S9 (1) (a) and S9 (1) (b), but it appears the offence Eddie has committed in the scenario comes under S9 (1) (a). The Actus Reus for the offence is that Eddie entered the building or part of the building as a trespasser. The Mens Rea is that he must know he is trespassing or trespassing recklessly and then he must have the intent to steal, inflict gbh or do unlawful damage. The first element of the Actus Reus is entry. ...read more.


We then move onto building/ part of a building. There is no legal definition for a building but the case of B&S v Leathley gave us some clarity. It also showed us how wide the definition of building is. Looking at this case, the freezer unit was classed as a building due to the fact that it had steps and an electricity supply connected to it. The courts also said that anything with wheels on it will be classed as a vehicle unless it is inhabited by people only then it may be classed as a building. In the scenario it is clear that a house is a building as it is inhabited by the wealthy banker. The final element is trespassing. ...read more.


It is clear that Eddie realises he is trespassing as he climbs into the house through an upstairs window. By the way that he gets in it is clear that he is trespassing. Secondly we must consider what is stated in S9 (1) (a) of the Theft Act 1968. The defendant must enter a building or part of a building with the conditional intent to commit an ulterior offence which is given to us in S9 (2) of the Theft Act 1968. The ulterior offences are that the defendant must have the intent to steal, inflict GBH or cause unlawful damage. Linking this back in to the scenario question it is clear that Eddies intention is to steal property as he climbs into the house in the hope of finding something valuable which he can us for his own gain. If convicted of the Burglary Eddie is liable to face up to 14years in prison ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Criminal Law section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Criminal Law essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Critical evaluation of murder for A2 law unit 4

    3 star(s)

    he had intention to cause grievous bodily harm and actually causes the victims death. In some of these cases the defendant may not even realise that death could occur. Yet he is just as guilty as the man who sets out to kill his victim intentionally.

  2. Law A2 unit 4 murder problem answer plan

    that whether an act is dangerous then means that it is likely to cause injury to another person. This is decided objectively - it must be an act that a sober and reasonable person would regard as dangerous, and would cause some harm.

  1. A person who genuinely attempts to commit a criminal offence and fails still deserves ...

    The acts were more than merely preparatory to the commission of the intended offence and therefore he should be punished as if the package really contained the drugs. Lack of punishment for a genuine attempt to commit a criminal offence will in some cases give incentive and opportunity for the

  2. Explain the meaning of Actus reus and mens rea

    Other considerations are whether the activity is socially useful (Watts v Hertfordshire CC). Explain whether the breach caused the damage For factual causation the question is but for the omission of the defendant would the damage have occurred. If the answer is yes then the D is not the factual

  1. List and explain the six most important cases for the law on insanity, explaining ...

    But it is not clear which of the three he must know is wrong. If he does not know his act is wrong both morally and legally, then he can use the defence of insanity. Windle decided what type of wrong the defendant needed to know his act was.

  2. The History and Main Features of Criminal Law in the USA.

    Each member of the conspiracy is liable for all crimes committed by other members of the conspiracy. Withdrawal from the conspiracy after an overt act has been committed is no defense. Conspiracy is a crime that requires more acts than solicitation does, but it does not require the defendant to

  1. The offence of burglary has been defined by parliament. However, it has been left ...

    As a trespasser to succeed on a charge of burglary, the prosecution must prove that the defendant knew, or was subjectively reckless, as to whether he was trespassing. This was changed to effective entry as the word ?substantial? did not materially assist the definition of entry in Brown (1985)

  2. Nina runs a burger bar. She puts up a sign in the window saying ...

    that is proposed by Ormerod, "in some cases there will be obvious advantages in presenting the case under s.3 to focus the jury's attention on the existence of the duty rather than straining to persuade them of a relevant representation".

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work