Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our professional writers as a learning aid to help you with your studies.
Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of UK Essays.
If you would like to view samples of the work produced by our academic writers please click here.
R v Brown  Crim LR 212
Burglary – meaning of ‘entry’ under Theft Act 1968.
The defendant, Brown, broke a shop window and stuck the top half of his body through the hole while rummaging about inside the shop in order to steal the contents. His lower half remained outside the shop. He was arrested and convicted of burglary under s.9 of the Theft Act 1968. He subsequently appealed against his conviction to the Court of Appeal.
Under s.9(1)(a) Theft Act 1968 a person commits the offence of burglary if they enter a building or part of a building as a trespasser with intent to commit certain offences listed in s.9(2). These include stealing, inflicting grievous bodily harm on any person therein, and doing unlawful damage to the building or anything therein. The defendant argued that he had not ‘entered’ the building. He relied upon a previous Court of Appeal ruling in R v Collins  2 All ER 105 (CA) where the Court of Appeal held that only an ‘effective and substantial entry’ would be enough to commit burglary (per Davies LJ at 106).
Entry had to be ‘effective’ but the word ‘substantial’ was not considered to be of additional help. Therefore all that was required was either an ‘effective’ or a ‘substantial’ entry. Here, the entry was ‘effective’. Therefore, the offence was complete. Entry could still be effective even if the defendant did not enter the premises with his whole body. The defendant had entered with intent to steal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
Related ServicesView all
DMCA / Removal Request
If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have the essay published on the UK Essays website then please.