Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.


Burglary Criticisms

No description

Danielle Wilson

on 16 June 2014

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Burglary Criticisms

Burglary Criticisms
There in
S.9.1.A and B refer to there in
This leads to statutory interpretation as this is an ambiguous term.
Dwelling and Non Dwelling
No definition of this in the act, leading to inconcsitencies
CPS Difficulty
Its difficult for CPS to make an appropriate and correct charge
Is the test objective or subjective?
Does D need to no the house is a dwelling or a non dwelling
The definition of burglary is comprehensive as it catches both intended burglaries and also oppurtunist D's.
However an issue is that intention is different for both offences, which can be confusing
Also its virtually impossible to prove a D's intent on entry. So often a charge of simple theft will be given.
This is far easier to prove as D must have actually committed an offence inside the property.
S.9.1 UD?
This doesn't exist and it seems rather illogical
Property V Harm
S.9.1.A requires serious harm or slight damage to property hence greater protection to property over life.
S.9.1 A&B together
It was orginally thought that D could be guilty of one offence. However it would seem that D could commit both A & B which seems illogical and is confusing.
Part of
Good PP that D may convicted on entering a part of a building, such as walkington
Does it have to be clearly segregated?
Better decision as it removed the requirement that entry should be substantial. However, entry still needs to be effective contradicting S.9.1.A.
Returned to the law prior to the theft act. Any insertion which is what the parliament agreed should be the test.
A fishing rod, hook
Parliament need to reform
Trigger Offences
Unlawful damage
Does this refer to criminal damage, as its undefined?
Does this require all 5 elements of theft?
Inflict GBH
Does this refer to S.20 or S.18? Undefined
Where D enters a building as a trespasser and kills.. would this come under GBH?
Not defined
Definition is provided by the COA which has changed several times
Substantial requirement was disadvneturous as a D who only part entered is still very culpable. Effective was contradicting the provisions of S.9.1.A as the offence is complete on entry even if it cant be committed.
Not defined
Problems whether storage containers are a building
Definition is quite wide including inhabited vehicles, means all culpable D's are convicted.
Civil test isn't sufficient, there was confusion whether civil trespass is sufficient. The COA have decided that D must have the MR to trespass deserving a criminal conviction.
Different convictions
These are comprehensive conviting those who trespass and exceed permission
Mens Rea
Conditional Intent
Highly advantagous that D will be convicted under conditional intent to steal anything of value
However, its not in the act which has led to confusion
Sentencing Problems
Distinction between Dwelling & Non Dwelling
Its good that Dwelling is 14 years and non dwelling is 10 years, mainly dwelling due to the invasion of space
Punitive Sentence
A 14 year custodial sentence seems harsh for a property offence, when compared to with other offences e.g S.20 GBH which is 5 years
Full transcript