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.
