Burglary as defined in s9 Theft Act 1968 — practice questions

1. Building (s9(4)): A shop is a building for the purposes of the Theft Act 1968.

2. Entry as a Trespasser: Leo had implied permission to enter the main shop area as a customer. However, by intentionally going behind the counter into a 'staff-only' area, he exceeded this permission. Citing R v Walkington, he becomes a trespasser upon entering this 'part of a building' where customers are not permitted. He has the mens rea for trespass as he knows he is not allowed there.

3. Analysis for s9(1)(a): For this offence, the prosecution must prove that at the moment he entered the area behind the counter, Leo had the intention to commit one of the ulterior offences. Here, he entered the area 'to steal cash from the till'. This shows he had the intention to steal at the point of entry into that part of the building. Therefore, all elements of s9(1)(a) burglary are satisfied. The offence was complete the moment he stepped behind the counter with that intent.

4. Analysis for s9(1)(b): This offence applies if, having entered as a trespasser, the defendant then commits or attempts to commit theft or GBH. If Leo reached the till and took or attempted to take money, he would also be liable for s9(1)(b) burglary. The act of stealing or attempting to steal would complete this offence.

5. Conclusion: Leo is certainly guilty of burglary under s9(1)(a), as his intent to steal coincided with his trespassory entry into the restricted area. If he proceeds to take or try to take money, he also commits the offence under s9(1)(b). In practice, he would likely be charged under s9(1)(a) as it is easier to prove.

1. Identify Potential Offence: The facts suggest Aggravated Burglary under s10 Theft Act 1968, which requires first proving a base burglary.

2. Analyse Base Burglary (s9(1)(a)):

• Actus Reus: Dave entered (breaking in) a building (a house) as a trespasser (no permission). All AR elements are met.
• Mens Rea: Dave knew he was trespassing. He had the intent to commit an ulterior offence (theft of the £450 console) at the time of entry. The specific intent to steal a valuable item (£450) is clear. Therefore, the elements of s9(1)(a) burglary are satisfied upon entry.

3. Analyse Aggravating Factor (s10):

• Commits any burglary: As established, Dave committed a s9(1)(a) burglary.
• 'at the time has with him': For a s9(1)(a) offence, this means at the time of entry. Dave had the knife with him when he broke into the house.
• 'any weapon of offence': A weapon of offence is an article made, adapted, or intended for causing injury. A lock-knife with a 10cm blade is not 'made' as a weapon, but it can be intended for such use. Dave's reason for carrying it ('for protection') implies an intention to use it to threaten or cause injury if confronted. Therefore, it qualifies as a weapon of offence.

4. Calculation & Conclusion:

• Step 1 (Base Burglary): AR (Entry + Building + Trespasser) + MR (MR for Trespass + Intent to steal £450 item) = s9(1)(a) Burglary is complete.
• Step 2 (Aggravation): Completed s9(1)(a) Burglary + possession of a Weapon of Offence (10cm knife) at the time of entry = s10 Aggravated Burglary is complete.
• Final Answer: Dave is liable for aggravated burglary under s10 Theft Act 1968. The offence is complete upon his entry with the weapon and the necessary intent, even though he stole nothing. The maximum sentence is life imprisonment.