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

The offence of burglary has been defined by parliament. However, it has been left to decisions of the courts to clarify most of the key ingredients of the offence.

Extracts from this document...


Burglary ?The offence of burglary has been defined by parliament. However, it has been left to decisions of the courts to clarify most of the key ingredients of the offence.? Burglary is an offence under s9 of the Theft Act which provides two different ways in which it can be committed. According to s.9(1) (a), person is guilty of burglary if he enters a building or part of a building as a trespasser with intent to steal, inflict GBH and do unlawful damage. In s.9 (1) (b), having entered a building or part of a building as trespasser, he steals or attempts to steal or inflicts or attempts to inflict GBH. The way of committing burglary as s.9(1) (a) is at the time of entering, however in s.9 (1) (b) there is no need to prove that D?s intention was at the time of entry but must be shown once in the building thereby catching a thief who has already trespassed within the building. ...read more.


as he was trapped when trying to enter into a house. In certain cases it is clear that entry not need to be ?effective? or ?substantial? in order for the offence to be carried out as in Ryan, where the intention of the defendant was seen to be more important that his ability to carry out the ulterior offence. This shows the inconsistency of the law when applying to entry as it is not defined in the 1968 Act and how it keeps changing over what constitutes as ?entry?. A building or part of a building must have some permanence as in B and S v Leathley (1979) was held to be building and Norfolk C v Seeking and Gould (1986) still had wheels which meant that it remained a vehicle. A building or part of a building includes inhibited vehicle or vessel in s.9 (4) of the Theft Act. The courts continue to have difficulty in determining what the term ?building? includes as there is very little statutory guidance as to what a building constitutes a building other that ?inhibited?. ...read more.


Smith and his friend Jones went to Smith?s father?s house and took two t.v sets without the father?s knowledge or permission. Smith was therefore guilty of burglary as at the moment he entered he intended to steal. Therefore a shoplifter entering a shop would be guilty of burglary if D entered intending to steal goods. Burglary was to protect buildings from trespasser from stealing or intending to steal. The extension of the law on burglary to include people, who have permission even though they have gone beyond that permission, is unnecessary. A thief as in Smith and Jones can still be charged with theft. For mens rea they must know or be subjectively reckless as to whether he is a trespasser, plus either intention at points of entry to commit theft, GBH or criminal damage in s.9(1)(a). mens rea for theft or GBH at the point of committing or attempting to commit these offences in a building in s.9(1)(b). Conditional intent is where D is entering intending to steal anything he can find which is worth taking. This is sufficient for D to be guilty under s. ...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

    How effective was the defence of intoxication?

    3 star(s)

    He could not be found guilty of murder as intention to kill or cause GBH could not be established.

  2. Law - Unit 3 - Mock Exam Question

    The court decided there was no breach because the club had taken reasonable precautions considering the size of the risk.

  1. Property Offences, Corporate Manslaughter and Police Powers of Search and Entry.

    They might also have the right to go into premises without a warrant to deal with or prevent a breach of the peace. Moreover the PACE which stands for police and criminal evidence provides with some other powers, these include: * To carry out a warrant of arrest or commitment.

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

    Although the police still have the power to lawfully arrest a defendant such as Campbell because they have reasonable grounds to believe that they are about to commit an arrestable offence, it appears that in order to secure a conviction they would have to wait until the person has actually entered the building and approached the counter.

  1. 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

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

    The final element is trespassing. In the case of Collins we were told that gaining permission you can?t be classed as a trespasser.in the scenario Eddie can be classed as a trespasser as he does not have the permission to be in the house, or even be on the land surrounding the property.

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