Burglary A02
- Created by: Rachael_1811
- Created on: 06-03-16 18:55
View mindmap
- Burglary
- The Theft Act 1986 does not define key elements of the offence of burglary
- no definition of 'entry', 'trespasser', or 'part of a building'
- Entry: changed through cases
- Collins (1972)- an effective and substantial enrty
- Brown (1985) - effective enrty
- Ryan (1996) - CA did not seem to follow need for effective enrty
- Entry: changed through cases
- 'Building' only party defined
- This has created difficulty in some cases and inconsistent decisions, especially on what is meant by 'entry'
- Lack of definitions means that the courts have had to decide what the Act was meant to cover.
- trespasser - civil law term
- no definition of 'entry', 'trespasser', or 'part of a building'
- Is the law protecting people or property?
- Under 9(1)(a) the defendant need only intend some damage (even slight) to be guilty
- Yet so far as injuring a person is concerned, the prosecution must prove intention to cause GBH
- Under 9(1)(a) the defendant need only intend some damage (even slight) to be guilty
- Decision in Smith and Jones
- CA- a person can become a trespasser when they goes beyond permission given to him
- this decision could mean that a guest at a dinner party in someone's house may become a trespasser if they enter another room
- burglary is supposed to protect people's home and other buildings from trespasser who intended to steal
- this decision could mean that a guest at a dinner party in someone's house may become a trespasser if they enter another room
- CA- a person can become a trespasser when they goes beyond permission given to him
- Conditional intent
- conditional intent does not permit a conviction for the full offence in other situations e.g rbbery
- The Theft Act 1986 does not define key elements of the offence of burglary
Similar Law resources:
Teacher recommended
Comments
No comments have yet been made