Burglary And Housebreaking Prosecutions
Overview
Burglary typically involves unlawful entry into a building or dwelling with the intent to commit a crime, usually theft or another felony.
Housebreaking is often used synonymously with burglary but may specifically refer to breaking into a house or residential premises.
Legal elements generally include:
Entry (breaking or otherwise)
Building or dwelling (sometimes extended to other structures)
Intent to commit a crime inside
Without consent of the owner/occupier
Prosecution focuses on proving unlawful entry and criminal intent.
Severity and sentencing can be enhanced by factors like possession of weapons, prior convictions, or whether violence occurred.
Legal Principles
Breaking and entering: Actual physical breaking is not always required; unauthorized entry is sufficient.
Constructive breaking: Entry by fraud or threats may also qualify.
Intent: Must be shown at the time of entry; evidence can be circumstantial.
Consent: Entry with owner’s permission negates burglary.
Dwelling: Usually a place where people live; sometimes expanded to businesses or other structures.
Case Law Examples
1. R v Collins (1973) [UK]
Facts: Defendant entered a woman’s bedroom by climbing a ladder; she thought he was her boyfriend and invited him in.
Issue: Whether entry was trespassory without consent.
Ruling: Conviction quashed because the entry was by invitation (consent).
Significance: Established that consent negates burglary; entry must be unlawful.
2. R v Brown (1985) [UK]
Facts: Defendant broke into a building intending to steal.
Issue: Whether entry included partial entry (e.g., inserting an arm).
Ruling: Court held partial entry with intent suffices for burglary.
Significance: Clarified scope of “entry” for burglary.
3. People v. Delgado (1991) [USA, California]
Facts: Defendant opened a window and put his arm inside a home intending to steal.
Issue: Whether partial entry constituted burglary.
Ruling: Conviction upheld; even partial entry counts.
Significance: Supports broader interpretation of entry in burglary.
4. R v Walkington (1979) [UK]
Facts: Defendant entered a shop after hours and went behind a counter area.
Issue: Whether the counter area was part of the building “broken into”.
Ruling: Court ruled that unauthorized entry into a part of a building closed to the public can constitute burglary.
Significance: Extended burglary to trespass into part of premises.
5. State v. Davis (2006) [USA]
Facts: Defendant entered a home through an unlocked door at night and took property.
Issue: Whether unlawful entry occurred without physical breaking.
Ruling: Conviction upheld; no breaking required if entry was unauthorized.
Significance: Reinforced that “breaking” is not essential.
6. R v Laing (1996) [UK]
Facts: Defendant entered an empty house with intent to commit theft.
Issue: Whether intent to steal inside an unoccupied building constituted burglary.
Ruling: Conviction upheld.
Significance: Intent is crucial regardless of actual commission of theft.
7. R v Jones and Smith (1976) [UK]
Facts: Defendant entered his father’s home without permission and stole items.
Issue: Whether entry by a person with some permission (son) could be burglary.
Ruling: Conviction upheld because entry was beyond any permission granted.
Significance: Highlights limits of consent.
Summary Table
| Case Name | Jurisdiction | Key Issue | Outcome | Legal Principle |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| R v Collins (1973) | UK | Consent to entry | Conviction quashed | Consent negates burglary |
| R v Brown (1985) | UK | Partial entry as burglary | Conviction upheld | Partial entry sufficient |
| People v. Delgado (1991) | USA | Partial entry | Conviction upheld | Broad entry definition |
| R v Walkington (1979) | UK | Trespass into part of premises | Conviction upheld | Burglary applies to parts of buildings |
| State v. Davis (2006) | USA | Entry without breaking | Conviction upheld | Breaking not essential for burglary |
| R v Laing (1996) | UK | Intent to steal | Conviction upheld | Intent at time of entry crucial |
| R v Jones and Smith (1976) | UK | Consent exceeded | Conviction upheld | Consent limited to scope of permission |
Key Takeaways
Consent is a key defense in burglary and housebreaking cases.
Unlawful entry includes partial or constructive entry.
Intent to commit crime at the time of entry is essential for conviction.
Breaking, in the physical sense, is not always necessary.
Trespassing into closed or restricted parts of a building may amount to burglary.
Courts tend to consider circumstantial evidence like tools, timing, or behavior to infer intent.
RELATED Blog
0 comments