Just wondering about the example you have on section 9.1 B of a homeless person having entered a building as a trespasser to sleep, they cause criminal damage by lighting a fire. It doesn’t mention on 9.1b criminal damage only on 9.1a, so will he in fact have caused burglary? Or would he be guilty of trespassing and criminal damage? Burglary is so confusing.
His intent when entering the building was to sleep. So, he therefore can’t do burglary in this instance he needed to have entered this building with the intent to cause damage. As he was in the building, he can only steal or cause GBH. Therefore it would just be criminal damage.
I prefer the old Larceny act 1916 , viz , 13Larceny in dwelling-houses Every person who steals in any dwelling-house any chattel, money, or valuable security shall- (a)if the value of the property stolen amounts to five pounds; or (b)if he by any menace or threat puts any person being in such dwelling-house in bodily fear;be guilty of felony and on conviction thereof liable to penal servitude for any term not exceeding fourteen years. 37Punishments (6)Where a sentence of whipping may be imposed under this Act- (a)in the case of an offender whose age does not exceed sixteen years, the number of strokes at such whipping shall not exceed twenty-five and the instrument used shall be a birch-rod ; (b)in the case of any other offender, the number of strokes at such whipping shall not exceed fifty ; in any case , house breaking under theft act 1968 shouldnt never of been made either way charge under the magistrates court act 1980
Just wondering about the example you have on section 9.1 B of a homeless person having entered a building as a trespasser to sleep, they cause criminal damage by lighting a fire. It doesn’t mention on 9.1b criminal damage only on 9.1a, so will he in fact have caused burglary? Or would he be guilty of trespassing and criminal damage?
Burglary is so confusing.
His intent when entering the building was to sleep. So, he therefore can’t do burglary in this instance he needed to have entered this building with the intent to cause damage. As he was in the building, he can only steal or cause GBH. Therefore it would just be criminal damage.
I prefer the old Larceny act 1916 , viz ,
13Larceny in dwelling-houses
Every person who steals in any dwelling-house any chattel, money, or valuable security shall-
(a)if the value of the property stolen amounts to five pounds; or
(b)if he by any menace or threat puts any person being in such dwelling-house in bodily fear;be guilty of felony and on conviction thereof liable to penal servitude for any term not exceeding fourteen years.
37Punishments
(6)Where a sentence of whipping may be imposed under this Act-
(a)in the case of an offender whose age does not exceed sixteen years, the number of strokes at such whipping shall not exceed twenty-five and the instrument used shall be a birch-rod ;
(b)in the case of any other offender, the number of strokes at such whipping shall not exceed fifty ;
in any case , house breaking under theft act 1968 shouldnt never of been made either way charge under the magistrates court act 1980