MR is formed before or on entering the building (crime is formed from entry)
1 of 18
What is the definition that s.9(1)(a) provides?
A person is guilty of burglary if he enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser (AR) with intent to commit theft or inflict GBH or cause unlawful damage (MR)
2 of 18
What is the type of burglary that is defined under s.9(1)(b)?
Where the crime is not complete until after entry, there is an attempt to steal or commit GBH
3 of 18
What definition does s.9(1)(b) provide?
A person is guilty of burglary if having entered any building or part of a trespasser, he then steals (or attempts to) or inflicts GBH (or attempts to do so)
4 of 18
What is the case that confirms that half d's body inside the building is sufficient entry to be 'effective', and it needs not be substantial or complete?
Brown
5 of 18
What case contrasts this?
Ryan
6 of 18
What happened in the case of Ryan?
D was stuck in a house window, as it had trapped him, which was sufficient entry for burglary
7 of 18
What happened in the case of Collins?
It was unclear whether D entered the building as a trespasser or whether he had consent before he entered the building.
8 of 18
What does the case of Collins confirms?
It confirms that it is the jury's decision
9 of 18
What does the case of Stevens & Gourley confirm?
It confirms that a building is a structure of considerable size with some degree of permanence, even if the intended use was temporary
10 of 18
Inhabited vehicles or vessels are buldings, what section defines this?
s.9(4)
11 of 18
What case confirms that a lorry is not a building as it still has wheels?
Seekings
12 of 18
What does the case of Leathley confirm?
It confirms that permanence is classed as a building
13 of 18
What happened in this case?
D stole from a freezer unit that had been in the same place for 2 or 3 years
14 of 18
What does the case of Wallington confirm?
It confirms that walking behind the partition was entering part of the building he had no consent to be in
15 of 18
What is the case where the judge convicted them of burglary even though they had permission to be on the premises?
Jones & Smith
16 of 18
What does the case of Hillen & Pettigrew v ICI confirm?
It confirms that, if consent to enter is given for a specific purpose, it may not be valid for another purpose
17 of 18
What is the case that confirms that intending to steal if they find something worth stealing is not enough for burglary?
AG Ref 1 &2 1979
18 of 18
Other cards in this set
Card 2
Front
What is the definition that s.9(1)(a) provides?
Back
A person is guilty of burglary if he enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser (AR) with intent to commit theft or inflict GBH or cause unlawful damage (MR)
Card 3
Front
What is the type of burglary that is defined under s.9(1)(b)?
Back
Card 4
Front
What definition does s.9(1)(b) provide?
Back
Card 5
Front
What is the case that confirms that half d's body inside the building is sufficient entry to be 'effective', and it needs not be substantial or complete?
Comments
No comments have yet been made