Statement A and D are correct. John enters the supermarket intending to steal (fulfilling the intent requirement of s.9(1)(a)). By entering the manager's office, a part of the building from which he may be implicitly excluded, he becomes a trespasser. Therefore, Statement A - that John is guilty of burglary under s.9(1)(a) - is correct. Statement D is also correct, as once inside the manager's office John steals the £20 note, fulfilling the requirements of s.9(1)(b) of having entered as a trespasser and stealing something. Statements B and C are not correct as the facts do not support robbery

1. Offences Against Property: Burglary Miss Hart G153 2010-11

2. Definitions: Common terms? s.9 Theft Act 1968 A person is guilty of burglary if- (a) he enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser and with intent to commit any such offence as is mentioned in subsection (2) below; or (b) having entered into any building or part of a building as a trespasser he steals or attempts to steal anything in the building or that part of it or inflicts or attempts to inflict on any person therein any grievous bodily harm. (2) The offences referred to in subsection (1)(a) above are offences of stealing anything in the building or part of a building in question, of inflicting on any person therein any grievous bodily harm or, raping any person therein* and of doing unlawful damage to the building or anything therein. 9(1)(a) AR MR Ulterior offences? Contained in which section? 9(1)(b) AR MR

3. Common Term 1:Entry R v Collins 1972 “substantial and effective”* *Today, Collins would not be liable for the burglary due to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 What have these three pictures got in common? R v Brown 1985 “effective” R v Ryan 1996 The problem of having no definition... and leaving it to a jury to decide on facts! Student Thinking: What implications does the Ryanruling have for the burglar who uses a stick to obtain goods, but never actually goes in the house?

4. Common Term 2Building Seeking & Gould B & S v Leathley Effect on sentencing “a structure of considerable size and intended to be permanent or at least endure for a considerable time” Dwelling = Non-Dwelling = What’s a dwelling? s.4 Theft Act 1968 also applies “to an inhabited vehicle or vessel”

5. ... or part of a building You might have permission to be in one area... But not another.. Links to trespasser! R v Walkington 1979 CA held that the area inside the till area represented "part of a building“ from which the public had been impliedly excluded, as D was aware of it, his conviction was upheld Student task: What about hotels? R v Laing 1995 A defendant cannot become a trespasser in a building or part of a building for the purposes of burglary, where he has previously entered that building, or that part of the building, as a lawful visitor.

7. You are walking past Buckingham Palace when Bob runs past you and pushes you through the window. Has a burglary been committed in either of these situations? Are you a trespasser? What if you have permission to enter the place? Can you still be a trespasser? R v Smith, Jones 1976 “when you invite a person in your house to use the staircase, you do not invite them to slide down the banisters.”

8. Applying the Law:Problem Ann invites Bob, her new boyfriend, to her house. Ann’s dad tells him he is not allowed near her bedroom. While watching TV, Bob asks to go to the toilet. While upstairs he decides to go into Ann’s bedroom and destroy all evidence of her previous boyfriend. Has there been a burglary?

9. Mens Rea of Burglary Knowledge or recklessness as to trespassing and 9 (1)(a) 9 (1)(b) With intent to commit one of the ulterior offences in s.9(2) They don’t actually have to commit it! That for: s.20 GBH Theft Conditional Intent is enough R v Walkington ; AG’s Ref No1 & 2 of 1979

10. Footballers charged with burglary Two Championship footballers have been charged with burglary in connection with the theft of items from a Portsmouth nightclub. Southampton Football Club striker Bradley Wright-Phillips, 23, and winger Nathan Dyer, 20, will appear before Portsmouth magistrates on 8 July. They were arrested in March over claims that items were taken from Bar Bluu nightclub, Southsea, on 28 February. Southampton FC has declined to comment on the case. Bradley Wright-Phillips, of Briton Street, Southampton, is the son of former Arsenal and England player Ian Wright and the half-brother of Chelsea and England player Shaun Wright-Phillips. Nathan Dyer, also of Briton Street, was a member of Southampton's youth team before playing for the Championship club. Staff members at the nightclub claim three mobile phones, £145 in cash, student cards and cigarettes went missing from three handbags. Police launched an investigation when a group of men were filmed on CCTV entering the unlocked staff room. The pair were charged after answering police bail at Portsmouth central police station. Applying the Law: 9 (1)(a) or 9(1)(b)? Entered? All or part of a building? Trespasser?

11. AO2:Evaluation ...However, there has been some modernisation recently e.g. The removal of attempted rape under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 There is no clear definition of what is meant, particularly the difference between a ‘dwelling’ and ‘non-dwelling’: vital to charging and sentencing It is currently a very technical definition e.g. No wheels. Match the halves to start your AO2! ...In the civil law, it means: “intentional, reckless or negligent entry into a building without consent of the occupier.” The professors debate whether the criminal should follow this. Currently the courts prefer Griew, and say that trespassing is a criminal term, and therefore does not include negligent action. There is a lot of debate over this and quite what it means. It is currently very wide, and even applies when D might have been given permission (Jones, Smith) The mensreain 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(b) are different, which seems odd, given the number of common terms... ... However they both require the intention and recklessness to trespass as the common basis. The differences reflect the two ways in which D may commit burglary, although they seem to put property over the person (GBH only!). The concept of the ulterior offences is confusing to the jury, and does not fit with the common understanding of ‘burglary’. ...This may seem far too wide, and unfair given that D does not even have to be able to access the goods to be liable given the max penalty. There is no need for the entry to be effective . Very wide definition, so it makes it easier to convict. D does not even be able to carry out the offence (Ryan) – it simply needs to be substantive. ...However, the courts have been consistent in their application of the common law definition, which might be vague, but suits the current law.

12. Statement B: John is guilty of theft under S.1 Theft Act 1968. Statement A: John is guilty of burglary under S.9(1)(a) Theft Act 1968. John enters a supermarket intending to steal some food. He is in the shop when he notices that the door to the manager’s office is open. He goes inside hoping to find something of value. There is no-one present but, as he is about to leave, he notices a wallet lying on the manager’s desk. John picks the wallet up and takes a £20 note out of it. The manager, Sue, sees him leaving the office and shouts at him. John pushes Sue aside and runs out of the store.[20] Statement C: John is guilty of robbery under S.8 Theft Act 1968. Statement D: John is guilty of burglary under S.9(1)(b) Theft Act 1968.