Evaluation and Legal Implications
This page provides an evaluation of the burglary offence as defined in the Theft Act 1968 and highlights some of the legal implications and inconsistencies within the legislation.
A notable inconsistency in the burglary legislation is the difference in treatment of criminal damage between Section 9(1)(a) and Section 9(1)(b) of the Theft Act 1968. While Section 9(1)(a) includes criminal damage as one of the ulterior offences that can constitute burglary if intended upon entry, Section 9(1)(b) does not include it as an offence that can turn trespass into burglary if committed after entry.
Highlight: If a defendant only develops the intention to commit criminal damage once inside the building, this cannot be charged as burglary under Section 9(1)(b), but would instead be charged as criminal damage.
This discrepancy raises questions about the consistency and comprehensiveness of the law. It creates a situation where the timing of the formation of criminal intent becomes crucial in determining whether an act can be classified as burglary or simply as criminal damage.
Example: If someone breaks into a building intending to cause damage, it's burglary under Section 9(1)(a). However, if they enter without that intent but then decide to cause damage once inside, it's not burglary under Section 9(1)(b), only criminal damage.
This evaluation highlights the need for legal professionals and lawmakers to consider whether this distinction serves the interests of justice or if it creates an unnecessary complication in the prosecution of property offences.
Quote: "It is unclear why s9(1)(a) includes criminal damage as the ulterior offence but s9(1)(b) does not."
The implications of this inconsistency could potentially affect how cases are charged and prosecuted, potentially leading to different outcomes for similar criminal behaviors based solely on the timing of the criminal intent formation.
