Burglary as defined in s9 Theft Act 1968 — common mistakes

In problem questions, always identify the exact point of entry and whether the defendant had permission to be in that specific part of the building. If they exceed their permission, they become a trespasser, and you must state this clearly, citing R v Jones and Smith or R v Walkington.

No. For a s9(1)(a) burglary, the offence is complete the moment the defendant enters a building as a trespasser with the intent to steal, cause GBH, or commit criminal damage. The ulterior crime does not need to be committed. For a s9(1)(b) burglary, they must attempt or commit theft or GBH, but a completed theft is not required; an attempt is sufficient.

This would be charged under s9(1)(a). Although they entered the main building legally, they became a trespasser when they entered the 'part of a building' (the stockroom) where they had no permission to be, as in R v Walkington. At that point of entry into the restricted area, they had the intent to steal, satisfying all the elements of s9(1)(a).

Conditional intent is when a defendant intends to steal only if they find something worth taking. The case of Attorney-General's Reference (Nos 1 and 2 of 1979) confirmed that this is sufficient for the mens rea of a s9(1)(a) burglary. The defendant does not need to have a specific item in mind; a general intention to steal whatever is valuable is enough.

A burglary becomes aggravated if the offender, at the time of the offence, has with them a firearm, imitation firearm, weapon of offence, or explosive. It elevates the seriousness of the crime significantly, reflecting the increased danger posed, and carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.