Burglary: Cape Law Unit One Name:Toujana Somers

BURGLARY
CAPE LAW UNIT ONE

NAME:TOUJANA SOMERS
WHAT IS BURGLARY?
 Burglary, also called breaking and entering and sometimes housebreaking, is the act of entering a
building or other areas without permission, with the intention of committing a criminal offence.
Usually that offence is theft, robbery or murder, but most jurisdictions include others within the
ambit of burglary.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEFT, ROBBERY AND
BURGLARY.
 Theft is one of the most commonly committed crimes. To commit theft, a person must take someone
else's property without the owner's consent and with the intention to permanently deprive the owner of
its use or possession. Shoplifting is an example of theft. Depending on the state where the crime
occurred, theft might be referred to as larceny. Some states divide theft penalties into petty theft and
grand theft, while others classify theft offenses by degrees (such as first- through fourth-degrees).
 Robbery, like theft, involves taking someone's property without the owner's consent, but it has some
elements that theft doesn't require. Robbery involves taking property from a person and using force, or
the threat of force, to do it.
 Though burglary can involve theft, one doesn't necessarily have to take any property to be convicted of
this crime. To commit burglary, a person must break and enter a structure or dwelling with the intent to
commit a crime inside.
OVERVIEW
THE LAW VIEW ON BURGLARY
CASES ASSOCIATED WITH BURGLARY
R v Brown [1985] 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 [1973] (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 [1996] 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 irrelevant.
R v Collins [1973] 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 premises.
CASES CONTD
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 [1995] 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 visitor.
AGGRAVATED BURGLARY
R v Stones [1989] 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 [1993] 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 theft.
THE END
THANK YOU FOR LISTENING

Burglary: Cape Law Unit One Name:Toujana Somers

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Burglary: Cape Law Unit One Name:Toujana Somers

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Burglary: Cape Law Unit One Name:Toujana Somers

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BURGLARY

CAPE LAW UNIT ONE

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.