Burglary: R v Warrington & Barker v The Queen

R v Warrington (UK, Ct of Appeal – Crim Div)

• Background statute

  • s9(1)(a) Theft Act 1968: a person is guilty of burglary if he “enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser with intent to steal …”.

• Facts

  • W observed in a large department store at closing time.
  • Crossed the public/customer boundary by going behind the sales counter (staff-only zone).
  • Till drawer was already slightly ajar → W pulled it fully open, looked inside, found it empty, and slammed it shut.
  • Action attracted attention; W arrested before leaving.

• Charge

  • Burglary: entering part of a building as a trespasser with intent to steal.

• Defence position at trial

  • Believed he had a right to be behind the counter; any inspection of the till was mere curiosity.
  • Could not have intended to steal because drawer contained nothing to steal.

• Grounds of appeal

  1. The counter was not a “part of a building” for purposes of the offence.
  2. Any intention was only conditional (he would steal if money were present) and therefore insufficient.

• Issues for Court

  • Meaning of part of a building when public are generally invited into the store.
  • Whether conditional intention meets the mens rea requirement.
  • Impact of legal impossibility (nothing to steal) on liability.

• Holding & Ratio

  • Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld.
  • Part of a building: A staff-only counter area is a distinct part from which the public is impliedly excluded; jury entitled to so find.
  • Conditional intent is enough – entering while willing to steal whatever might be found fulfils intent; physical impossibility does not negate burglary.
  • Moment of entry (or, at latest, moment of reaching into the till) crystallised mens rea.

• Key analytical nuggets

  • Boundary rule: invitation to the public is spatially limited; exceeding it knowingly or recklessly = trespass.
  • Formulaic summary: \text{Burglary} = \text{Entry} + \text{Trespass} + \text{Intent to steal}.
  • Impossibility principle: \text{Mens rea} is assessed at entry, not by the success of the theft.

• Practical / ethical take-aways

  • Retailers need not keep valuables on site for burglary to be complete.
  • Law targets the risk-creating decision (entering with dishonest purpose), not the end result.

• Useful exam triggers

  • Opening empty safe/till, empty lockers, etc. → cite Warrington for conditional intent.
  • Compare with attempt liability: both treat ‘if there is property’ as sufficient intention.

Barker v The Queen (High Court of Australia)

• Statutory provision

  • s76(1)(a) Crimes Act (Vic): burglary where a person “enters any building as a trespasser with intent to steal”.

• Facts

  • Neighbour on holiday entrusted B with a key to mind the house (water plants, safeguard premises).
  • B entered, removed/used neighbour’s possessions.
  • Charged and convicted of burglary.

• Defence argument

  • Possessed lawful permission to enter; therefore could not be classified a trespasser despite dishonest intent.

• Central legal question

  • Can a person who has limited authority to enter become a trespasser when entering for a purpose inconsistent with that authority?

• Decision & Core reasoning

  • Conviction affirmed; appeal dismissed.
  • Authority can be purpose-specific and narrowly bounded. Once D entered “wholly inconsistently” with that purpose (i.e., to steal), his entry was in trespass.
  • The presence of a key or facial permission is irrelevant if the scope of permission is exceeded.
  • Mens rea: satisfied when D knows the intended entry/use is outside the licence or is reckless about that limit.

• Common-law principle articulated

  • If a right or authority to enter is limited, any entry outside—or any use unrelated to—that right constitutes trespass.

• Implications & examples

  • House-sitters, cleaners, repair technicians: become burglars if they exploit access to steal, even without forced entry.
  • Reinforces fiduciary component of entrusted access; breach converts licence into trespass.
  • Policy: protects owners against abuse of trust as strongly as against forced breaking.

Thematic Synthesis & Exam Tips

• Trespass dimension

  • Spatial excess → Warrington.
  • Purpose excess → Barker.
  • Both satisfy entry as trespasser despite initial public invitation or private authority.

• Conditional Intention doctrine

  • Intention to steal need not be absolute; willingness to steal whatever may be found suffices.
  • Absence of takable property is neither legal nor factual defence once intent is proved.

• Mens rea check-list

  1. Did D enter knowingly/recklessly without (or beyond) permission?
  2. At the moment of entry, did D intend \text{dishonest appropriation of property}?
  3. Even if the property is non-existent or inaccessible, intention stands (Warrington).
  4. If licence was limited, did D appreciate that his purpose exceeded that limit (Barker)?

• Ethical / philosophical reflections

  • Law emphasises trust boundaries—breach of spatial or contextual trust evokes the same blameworthiness as forced entry.
  • Protects societal reliance on shared spaces (shops) and entrusted relationships (neighbours).

• Quick hypotheticals for practice

  • A hotel guest sneaks into staff-only laundry room to look for valuables → Warrington principles.
  • A babysitter pockets jewellery while parents are out → Barker application.
  • Technician with all-areas pass but steals from a private safe → both cases useful.