Burglary by entering part of a building as a trespasser (Theft Act 1968, s.9(1)(a))
Ethan Brooks goes into an electronics shop in Exeter during opening hours. He walks through a door marked 'Staff only' into the stockroom, intending to steal a games console. He is stopped by a member of staff before he picks anything up.
Which of the following best describes Ethan's liability for burglary?
Choose one answer to see the reasoning.
Worked answer
Correct answer A: He is guilty of burglary, because he entered part of a building as a trespasser with intent to steal.
THE RULE TO REMEMBER
Entering part of a building beyond the scope of one's permission, with intent to steal, is burglary under s.9(1)(a); nothing need be taken.
Burglary by entering part of a building as a trespasser (Theft Act 1968, s.9(1)(a))
Under s.9(1)(a) of the Theft Act 1968, a person is guilty of burglary if he enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser with intent to commit one of the offences listed in s.9(2), which include stealing anything in the building or part in question. Ethan had permission to be in the public area of the shop as a customer, but that permission did not extend to the stockroom, which was marked 'Staff only'. When he went in he entered that part of the building as a trespasser, and he intended at that moment to steal. Burglary under s.9(1)(a) is complete on entry with the required intent. Nothing need be taken, so the offence was committed even though he was stopped first.
Why B is wrong: Permission to enter the shop floor did not extend to the staff-only stockroom, which is a separate 'part of a building'.
Why C is wrong: Stealing or attempting to steal is required only for s.9(1)(b); under s.9(1)(a) the intent at entry is enough.
Why D is wrong: The full offence of burglary was complete on entry with intent to steal.
Why E is wrong: Burglary requires entry as a trespasser, not breaking or force.
A little more practice done.
Related questions
Burglary where the intent to steal is formed after entry (Theft Act 1968 s.9(1)(b))
Which of the following best describes Marcus's liability for burglary?
Aggravated burglary: when is an article a 'weapon of offence'? (Theft Act 1968, s.10)
Which of the following best describes Gemma's liability for aggravated 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?
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.