R v Ryan (Burglary Entry)

Facts

At night the defendant was found trapped in the window of a house, with his head and one arm inside and the rest of his body outside. He was carrying out an attempt to get into the house to steal.

History

He was convicted at trial of burglary, entering as a trespasser with intent to steal, and appealed on the ground that he had not effected an entry.

Issue

Whether a defendant who has inserted only part of his body into a building has entered it for the purposes of s 9 of the Theft Act 1968, and what the relevance is of the question whether the entry was effective.

Held

Appeal dismissed and the conviction upheld. The jury was entitled to find that the defendant had entered the building, even though his entry was partial and he was unable to move further inside.

Ratio

• Entry for the purposes of burglary does not require the whole body to be inside, and may consist of the insertion of part of the body; whether the defendant has entered is a question of fact for the jury, and it is not necessary that the entry be one that would have enabled him to carry out the intended offence.

Key reasoning

• The statute speaks of entering a building as a trespasser, and a partial entry can be an entry in ordinary language and in the law.
• Earlier cases had suggested that an entry must be effective or substantial, but those statements do not require that the defendant be able to commit the ulterior offence once in.
• The defendant had inserted his head and arm into the building and was in a position to take something, so the jury could properly find that he entered.

Where it fits in the module

Topic 5 on property offences covers burglary under s 9 of the Theft Act 1968, including the elements of entry, building and trespass and the ulterior offence in each limb. The case concerns the actus reus of entry, and shows how the courts have moved from the older requirement of an effective entry to a broader notion that a partial entry suffices. It sits alongside the issues of whether the offence should punish the intrusion or the criminal purpose behind it.

Criticisms

• Treating a person stuck in a window as having entered a building overlooks that the harm which burglary addresses, the intrusion into the home, may be minimal where the defendant is unable to proceed.
• The concept of entry is left to the jury as a question of fact without any guidance, which yields uncertain and inconsistent outcomes in borderline cases.
• Dropping any requirement of an effective entry means the offence overlaps with attempted burglary and removes the distinction between completed and attempted conduct.