R v Collins [1973] QB 100; [1972] Crim LR 498

Burglary is the unlawful entry into a building or property intended to commit a crime, typically theft or another felony. It encompasses both breaking into a structure, such as a house or commercial premises and remaining inside unlawfully. 

Entry of a building "as a trespasser" refers to entering a property without lawful authority or permission.

• This can occur through various means, such as unauthorized access through unlocked doors or windows.

• The legal implications of trespassing vary by jurisdiction but generally involve civil or criminal penalties depending on the circumstances and any damage or harm caused during the trespass.

• It underscores the importance of respecting property rights and boundaries under the law.

Entry under mistake as to identity occurs when an individual enters a property believing they have the right to do so due to a misunderstanding of their identity or permission granted.

• This situation can arise unintentionally, such as confusion over similar names or misleading information provided.

• Legal consequences may differ based on whether the mistake was reasonable and if any harm or disruption occurred. Clarity and identity verification are crucial in avoiding misunderstandings and potential legal ramifications.

Section 9 (1) (a) of the Theft Act 1968 outlines the offense of theft.

• It specifies that a person is guilty of theft if they dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.

• This provision forms a foundational aspect of theft law in many jurisdictions, emphasizing the importance of dishonest intent and deprivation of property rights. 

The incident occurred on July 24, 1971, in Colchester, where the 18-year-old woman (“Complainant”) was asleep in her mother's home.

• Stephen William George Collins (“Defendant”) climbed onto the window-sill of the Complainant's bedroom, which had an open lattice-type window.

• He observed her sleeping naked and mistook her for his girlfriend due to the moonlight.

• Believing the Complainant was his girlfriend, the Defendant entered the room, undressed, and engaged in sexual intercourse with her.

• The Complainant initially thought he was her boyfriend and consented to his presence and actions.

• Upon realizing the Defendant's identity was mistaken, the Complainant turned on the bedside light, recognized him, and confronted him.

• She demanded that he leave and eventually got him to leave the room.

The Defendant was later charged with burglary with intent to commit rape under section 9(1)(a) of the Theft Act 1968.

He was convicted at Essex Assizes, but the conviction was appealed because the jury was not properly directed on the element of trespass as required by the law.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction of Stephen William George Collins.

The court emphasized that for a conviction under section 9(1)(a) of the Theft Act 1968 (burglary with intent to commit rape), the jury must be satisfied that the Defendant entered the premises as a trespasser.

• This requires the Defendant to have entered knowing he had no invitation or recklessly, without considering any implied consent due to mistaken identity.

• The court found that the trial judge did not adequately direct the jury on the issue of whether the Defendant entered the room as a trespasser.

• The judge's directions did not sufficiently clarify the requirement that the Defendant's entry must be intentional and without any indication from the Complainant that she consented to his presence.

Given the circumstances and the legal interpretation required under the Theft Act 1968, the Court of Appeal concluded that the conviction was unsafe.

• They emphasized that despite the suspicion of the Defendant's intentions, the facts did not clearly establish that he entered the premises as a trespasser in the legal sense required by the statute.

As a result, the appeal was allowed, and Stephen William George Collins was acquitted of the charge of burglary with intent to commit rape.

This case illustrates the complexities inherent in criminal law, particularly regarding intent and trespass.

• The legal system places significant emphasis on the defendant's knowledge and intention at the time of the offense.

• For a conviction under Section 9(1)(a) of the Theft Act 1968, it must be demonstrated that the Defendant knowingly or recklessly entered without consent, which was not sufficiently established in Collins' case.

The Court of Appeal's decision reflects the principle that convictions must be based on clear and accurate jury directions concerning the legal requirements of the offense.

• This safeguard ensures that individuals are not wrongfully convicted based on incomplete or misleading instructions regarding elements of the crime, such as trespassing or burglary.

• This case shows the balance of legal definitions, the interpretation of intent, and the importance of proper jury direction in achieving just outcomes in criminal proceedings.