Burglary where the intent to steal is formed after entry (Theft Act 1968 s.9(1)(b))
During a storm, Marcus Reid walks into his neighbour's house through an open back door to shelter from the rain. He knows he has no permission to be there. When he enters, he intends only to stay dry. Once inside, he sees a laptop on the kitchen table, decides to take it, and leaves with it, intending to sell it. The neighbour, Joanne Fisher, never gave him permission to enter or to take anything.
Which of the following best describes Marcus's liability for burglary?
Choose one answer to see the reasoning.
Worked answer
Correct answer B: He is guilty of burglary under section 9(1)(b), because having entered as a trespasser he stole something in the building.
THE RULE TO REMEMBER
Burglary under s.9(1)(b) needs only a trespassory entry followed by theft (or attempted theft, or GBH or attempted GBH) inside; the ulterior intent at the point of entry is required only for s.9(1)(a).
Burglary where the intent to steal is formed after entry (Theft Act 1968 s.9(1)(b))
Section 9(1) of the Theft Act 1968 creates two forms of burglary. Under s.9(1)(a) the defendant must enter a building or part of a building as a trespasser with intent, at the time of entry, to commit one of the offences listed in s.9(2). Under s.9(1)(b) it is enough that, having entered as a trespasser, the defendant steals or attempts to steal anything in the building, or inflicts or attempts to inflict grievous bodily harm on any person in it. Marcus entered Joanne's house knowing he had no permission, so he entered as a trespasser. He had no intent to steal when he entered, so s.9(1)(a) is not made out. But he then stole the laptop while inside, which satisfies s.9(1)(b). The maximum sentence on indictment is fourteen years because the building is a dwelling (s.9(3)(a)).
Why A is wrong: Intent at entry is required only for s.9(1)(a); s.9(1)(b) is met by stealing after a trespassory entry.
Why C is wrong: s.9(1)(a) requires the intent at the time of entry, and a later intention is not backdated.
Why D is wrong: s.9 requires entry as a trespasser, not forced entry or breaking.
Why E is wrong: His motive does not make the entry permitted; he knew he had no permission, so he was a trespasser.
That's today's practice done. Another featured question tomorrow.
Related questions
Burglary by entering part of a building as a trespasser (Theft Act 1968, s.9(1)(a))
Which of the following best describes Ethan's liability for burglary?
Oblique intention and the virtual certainty direction (R v Woollin)
Which of the following is the correct direction the judge should have given on intention?
Subjective recklessness in criminal damage (R v G)
Which of the following best describes whether Priya was reckless as to the damage to the warehouse?
A GOOD HABIT, DELIVERED
Tomorrow's question.
In your inbox.
One free question a day, with the answer and reasoning.
No course pitches. Just your daily practice.