R v Collins, [1973] QB 100

Can You Answer This?

Practice with real exam questions

Paige notices a partially open basement window at her neighbor’s residence late one evening and decides to investigate. She slides her arm through the opening and manages to turn the latch, pushing it wider. Unbeknownst to her, the neighbor, who is inside, believes Paige to be a trusted family friend. Based on this belief, the neighbor verbally invites Paige to come inside. Once inside, Paige seizes an expensive camera on a nearby table, planning to leave with it.


Which of the following statements most accurately reflects the legal principles regarding ‘entry’ in the context of burglary?

Introduction

Burglary, under section 9(1)(a) of the Theft Act 1968, requires an individual to enter any building or part of a building as a trespasser with intent to steal, inflict grievous bodily harm, or do unlawful damage. The concept of "entry" is central to this offense. Technical principles established through case law, particularly R v Collins [1973] QB 100, define "entry" as requiring both effectiveness and substantiality. This judgment clarified the necessary elements for entry to be legally sufficient for a burglary conviction. The Court of Appeal in Collins addressed uncertainty around the degree of entry required, setting a standard that continues to influence how burglary law is applied.

The Facts of R v Collins

The defendant, Collins, climbed a ladder to an open bedroom window where a young woman was sleeping. He descended the ladder, stripped to his socks, and climbed back up. The woman, mistaking him for her boyfriend, invited him in. Intercourse followed. Collins was charged with burglary with intent to rape, with the prosecution arguing that his initial presence at the window constituted entry.

"Effective Entry": Purpose and Action

The Court of Appeal in Collins examined the meaning of "effective entry." The court considered whether mere presence at the window, before the invitation, constituted an entry sufficient for burglary. The judges concluded that entry must be "effective" in enabling the intended crime. In this case, the prosecution argued that Collins’s initial placement of a part of his body across the window sill, even before descending the ladder, was sufficient. The court, however, questioned this view, stating that the entry must relate directly to the commission of the intended offense. Collins’s initial, brief presence at the window, before descending to remove his clothes, was not seen as enabling his ultimate goal.

"Substantial Entry": More Than Minimal Presence

The requirement of "substantial entry" further narrows the definition. R v Brown [1985] Crim LR 212, a case following Collins, stated that entry must be more than minimal or temporary. While Collins did not explicitly define "substantial," it implied that the entry must have meaningful connection to the intended crime. In Brown, the defendant broke a shop window and reached inside to steal goods. This was judged substantial, as the entry allowed the theft, unlike merely breaking the window without reaching in.

The Collins Legacy: Subsequent Case Law

R v Ryan [1996] Crim LR 320 expanded on the principles from Collins. In Ryan, the defendant was trapped with his head and arm inside a window, unable to proceed further or steal anything. The Court of Appeal upheld his conviction, ruling that entry need not enable the full commission of the offense. Even partial entry can be substantial if it aids any part of the intended criminal act. This confirms that the focus is on the purpose and effect of the entry, not its scale. Ryan stated that the required degree of entry is ultimately for the jury to decide based on case-specific evidence.

Distinguishing Trespass from Invitation

A key aspect of burglary is that the entry must be as a trespasser. In Collins, the invitation from the woman raised questions about trespass. The court assessed whether the invitation invalidated the trespass. It concluded that if the invitation was given under a mistaken belief about identity, the defendant remained a trespasser. This highlights the need to assess the context of the entry to determine whether it was lawfully permitted.

Conclusion

The R v Collins judgment clarified the meaning of "entry" in burglary cases. The requirement for entry to be both "effective" and "substantial" ensures the act of entry is directly tied to the intended crime. Later cases, like R v Brown and R v Ryan, have refined these principles, focusing on how the entry enables the offense rather than its physical extent. The concept of trespass remains a key element, and the context of the entry, including any mistaken consent, must be evaluated. The standards from Collins continue to shape legal interpretations of burglary, showing the lasting importance of this case in setting the boundaries of this complex offense.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.

Related Posts

Explore more resources to support your job and test preparation

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of December 2024. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

Practice. Learn. Excel.

Features designed to support your job and test preparation

Question Bank

Access 100,000+ questions that adapt to your performance level and learning style.

Performance Analytics

Track your progress across topics and identify knowledge gaps with comprehensive analytics and insights.

Multi-Assessment Support

Prepare for multiple exams simultaneously, from academic tests to professional certifications.

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal