Published: Wed, 07 Mar 2018
Cases on Burglary
R v Brown  Crim LR 212
A witness, having heard the sound of breaking glass, saw the defendant
partially inside a shop front display. The top half of his body was inside the
shop window as though he were rummaging inside it. The witness assumed that his
feet were on the ground outside, although his view was obscured. The defendant
was convicted of burglary. He appealed on the ground that he had not
“entered” the building, since his body was not entirely within it.
The Court of Appeal held, dismissing the appeal, that the word
“enter” in s9 TA 1968 did not require that the whole of the
defendant’s body be within a building. The statement of Edmund-Davies LJ in R v
Collins  (below) that entry must be “substantial and effective”
did not support the defendant’s contention. “Substantial” did not
materially assist in the matter, but a jury should be directed that, in order to
convict, they must be satisfied that the entry was “effective”. There
had clearly been an entry in the present case.
R v Ryan  Crim LR 320
The victim, an elderly householder, found the defendant stuck in a downstairs
window of V’s house at about 2.30am. The defendant’s head and right arm were
inside the window which had fallen on his neck and trapped him. The rest of his
body was outside the window. He was convicted of burglary and appealed on the
grounds that there was no entry because he could not have stolen anything from
within the building on account of being stuck.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. R v Brown (1985) made it clear that
the defendant could enter even if only part of his body was within the premises.
The defendant’s inability to steal anything because he was trapped was totally
R v Collins  QB 100
The defendant, having discovered that a woman was lying asleep and naked on
her bed, stripped off his clothes and climbed up a ladder on to the window sill
of the bedroom. At this moment the woman awoke and, mistakenly believing that
the naked form at the window was her boyfriend, beckoned the defendant in. The
defendant then got into her bed and it was only after the defendant had
intercourse with her that the woman realised her error. The defendant’s
conviction for burglary (entering as a trespasser with intent to commit rape
contrary to s9(1)(a)) was quashed “on the basis that the jury were never
invited to consider the vital question whether the defendant did enter the
premises as a trespasser, that is to say knowing perfectly well that he had no
invitation to enter or reckless of whether or not his entry was with permission… “
NOTE: Another difficulty of the case lay in determining whether the defendant
had entered the building before or after an invitation to enter had been made.
If he was already inside the room, having climbed through the window frame, and
kneeling upon the inner sill (before any invitation had been made to him) he
would already be guilty of burglary for he had already entered with intent to
rape and the victim’s subsequent consent could not alter that. If he was
kneeling on the sill outside the window he would not have been guilty of
burglary as the invitation to enter had been made while he was still outside the
R v Walkington (1979) 68 Cr App R 427
The defendant had entered a department store during opening hours, and had
approached a three-sided partition that surrounded a till on the middle of the
shop floor. He proceeded to stand inside the partitioned area and opened the
till drawer to see if it contained any money for him to steal. The defendant was
convicted under s9(1)(a) of entering part of a building as a trespasser with
intent to steal.
The Court of Appeal held that the area inside the partition represented
“part of a building” from which the public had been impliedly
excluded. The defendant being aware of this had been correctly convicted.
R v Laing  Crim LR 395
The defendant was found in the stock room of a department store some time
after the store had closed to the public. He was convicted of burglary contrary
to s9(1)(a) TA 1968 on the basis that he was trespassing when he was found by
the police. The trial judge had directed the jury that even though the evidence
was that when he entered he was not a trespasser, it was open to them to decide
that he had become one when he was found. However, the Crown had not sought to
argue that he had entered a part of a building as a trespasser by going into the
stock area, which was not open to the public at any time.
The Court of Appeal allowed the defendant’s appeal. There was no argument put
to the court that the defendant had entered the store as a trespasser, and the
prosecution had opted not to argue that he became a trespasser by moving from
one part of the store to another. A defendant cannot become a trespasser in a
building or part of a building for the purposes of burglary, where he has
previously entered that building, or that part of the building, as a lawful
R v Stones  1 WLR 156
The defendant was arrested shortly after having burgled a house. On being
searched he was found to be in possession of a household knife. The defendant
alleged that he carried it with him because he was under a general threat of
attack from a group of men. The defendant was convicted of aggravated burglary
contrary to s10 and appealed on the ground that he had not been in possession of
the knife with intent to use it in the course of the burglary.
The Court of Appeal held that s10 merely required that the defendant had with
him a weapon of offence at the time of the burglary. Applying the mischief rule,
the court felt that what Parliament sought to prevent was the commission of
burglary by a defendant who might be tempted to use any weapon of offence in his
possession if challenged or opposed during the course of a burglary.
R v Kelly  Crim LR 763
The defendant had broken into a house, using a screwdriver to effect entry.
When surprised by the householder, the defendant told him to unplug the video
and then pushed the screwdriver into his ribcage. On leaving the house, the
defendant was apprehended by police, holding a video in one hand and the
screwdriver in the other.
The Court of Appeal held that the defendant became guilty of aggravated
burglary when he used the screwdriver to prod the householder in the stomach. It
was held that the focus of s10 was use during burglary, so that the screwdriver
taken into the house became a weapon of offence on proof that he intended to use
it for causing injury to, or incapacitating, the householder at the time of the
Cite This Essay
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below: