How not to prove the elements of Burglary
So, you’re a homeless serial offender known to the local police. If your face wasn’t familiar enough, you add a puppy to the mix to make sure you are absolutely unmistakenly recognizable. And then you go and commit a crime with the puppy leading the way in a place where there’s bound to be high security and CCTV cameras all around. Yet, the court dismisses the case. Everyone can see you committed the crime but it’s times like these when the hands of the law certainly seemed tied. How did this man get away with committing burglary?
It will be easier to start with the definition of burglary in law. Burglary is defined in section 9 of the Theft Act of 1968 as entering any building or part of a building as a trespasser and with intent to steal, or having entered any building or part of a building as a trespasser he steals or attempts to steal anything in the building or that part of it or inflicts or attempts to inflict on any person therein any grievous bodily harm.
The burden of proof, as always, in criminal cases is on the prosecutor to prove beyond reasonable doubt 2 elements to successfully prove burglary: trespass and theft. If there is no trespass, then the offence is only theft. Therefore, if the prosecutor is bringing the charge of burglary against the defendant, they must prove both theft and trespass, if they cannot prove both, they should amend the charge to theft before the trial.
The maximum penalty for this offence is 15 years in prison.
In this defendant’s case, while it was clear as day that the defendant had entered a private property with his very recognizable dog leading the entry into the building, with both man and dog being familiar with the local police who came to court to give evidence to this fact, and then leaving the property with a bag (the stolen goods), this time, it was the incompetence of the prosecutor that set the known criminal free. This prosecutor was an agent for the Crown Prosecution Services (CPS), meaning an outside agent hired by CPS to deal with the overwhelming number of cases they face all the time for lack of in-house prosecutors to handle cases. In this case, despite showing CCTV footage clearly confirming the identity of the defendant, which is further confirmed by his puppy, and police giving evidence as to his identity, and the prosecutor reading a statement from the building security staff about items stolen from him, burglary was not proven because no evidence was given with regards to trespass. So while all the elements of theft were perfectly proven, there was nothing provided to show that the defendant had entered premises that he was not invited or allowed to enter, in other words, trespass.
What can I say, in court, it seems to be a regular occurrence that if the police get their evidence right, the prosecutor might fail in their duty to prove the elements of the case, if not vice versa, and then people question the court’s decisions. While courts can get it wrong and do get it wrong often, their decision is incumbent upon the evidence in front of them. That is the price of a blindfolded Lady Justice.
Leave a comment