First 591 words of the document:
S.9 (1) (1): Enter a building/part of a building as a trespasser with intent to steal or
inflicting GBH or damage property.
S.9 (1) (b): Having entered building/ part of building as a trespasser steals/ attempts to
steal are inflict GBH/ attempts to inflict GBH.
Entry: is not defined in the Theft act 1968 but there are cases regarding it. However from the
vases of Brown (1985) the entry must be an effective entry.
Brown (1985): D was seen leaning through a broken shop window with the top half of his body
inside a shop as though he was rummaging around. His feet were on the ground outside. He
claimed that he could not be said to have entered a building if only part of his body had been
inside it. Held:The word "enter" in s 9 of the Theft Act 1968 meant "effective" entry; it was not
necessary for the entry to be complete or even substantial, so long as the entry was effective for D
to carry out the ulterior offence. The proposition that a person could break a shop window, pass
his hands through the window into the shop and steal and not be held as having entered as a
trespasser was incredible.
Ryan (1996): D burgled a house but only got as far as being trapped by his neck with only his head
and right arm inside a window. He was not in a position to steal. Held : It cannot have been
intended that D must have got so far into the building as to be able to accomplish his unlawful
purpose. It appears therefore that we return to the common law position that the body or part of
the body or an extension of the body used or intended to facilitate theft amounts to entry
whereas entry by a tool for effecting entry does not.
Trespasser: someone who is on someone else's property without authority. Can also include
someone who has authority to enter land for a particular purpose but enters it for another
Jones & Smith (1976): D stole two televisions from his father's house, which he had general
permission to enter. He had left home but was allowed to visit . Held:D was a trespasser if he
entered premises knowing that or being reckless whether he was entering in excess of any
permission that had been given to him to enter.
Can also include someone who acts in excess of permission given.
Hillen (1936) (Civil case): "when you invite a person into your house to use the stairs you do not
invite him to slide down the banister".
Building: s9 (4) includes inhabited vehicle vessel.
Stevens V Goorley (1859): "A structure of considerable size and intended to be permanent or at
least endure for a considerable time"
B & S V Leathly (1979): DD stole meat from a freezer container in a farmyard. The freezer was 25
feet long with 7 feet square cross-section, weighing about three tons and had been in place for
two or three years . Held: The freezer was, therefore, `a structure of considerable size and
intended to be permanent or at least to endure for a considerable period', that is, the court was
satisfied that the test in Stevens v Gourley (1859) was fulfilled. In addition its doors were equipped
Other pages in this set
Here's a taster:
court concluded that it was a building for the purposes of the offence of burglary.
Norfolk Constabulary V Seekings & Gould (1986): D and accomplice tried to get into two
articulated lorry trailers being used by a supermarket as temporary storage space while the
building was being redeveloped. Each was supported by its own wheels and struts and an electric
cable serviced the lighting. Access was by way of steps .…read more