R v Walkington [1979] 1 W.L.R. 1169

KEY POINTS

• Crime encompasses a wide range of unlawful activities that violate established laws, from minor offences like petty theft to serious felonies such as homicide. These acts disrupt societal order and can lead to public fear and mistrust. Effective crime prevention and prosecution require collaboration between legal frameworks, law enforcement, and community involvement.

• Burglary is defined as the unlawful entry into a building with the intent to commit a crime, usually theft. It can occur in various settings, including homes and businesses, and is distinct from trespassing due to the offender's criminal intent. Burglary poses threats to safety and property, leading to emotional and financial harm for victims.

• "Entry of a building as a trespasser" involves unlawfully entering a property without the owner's permission. This act constitutes trespassing, which varies in legal implications based on intent and circumstances. Understanding the difference between lawful entry and trespassing is crucial for enforcing property rights and protecting individual security.

• Section 9(1)(a) of the Theft Act 1968 defines burglary in England and Wales. It makes it an offence to enter a building as a trespasser with intent to commit theft, cause bodily harm, or damage property. This statute highlights the role of intent in classifying burglary and underscores the serious legal consequences for offenders and the protection of property owners.

FACTS

• Terence John Walkington (“Defendant”) The defendant entered a department store just before closing time, a period when the store assistants were preoccupied with counting cash in their tills. He made his way to the second floor, where he encountered a till that was partly open and unattended, situated in the corner of a three-sided movable counter.

• Curious, the Defendant entered the enclosed area within the counter. After surveying his surroundings, he bent down and further pried open the till to look inside. To his disappointment, he discovered that the till was empty. Frustrated, he slammed the till shut and began to make his way out of the store.

• However, his actions did not go unnoticed. A store detective apprehended him before he could exit and subsequently placed him under arrest. The Defendant was charged with burglary under Section 9(1)(a) of the Theft Act 1978, which stipulated that a person was guilty of burglary if they entered a part of a building as a trespasser with the intent to commit theft.

• During the trial, the Defendant conceded that had there been money in the till, he would have stolen it. However, his Defence contended that he did not qualify as a trespasser within the legal definition of burglary. The presiding judge ruled that there was sufficient evidence for the matter to be presented to the jury. Following deliberation, the jury returned a verdict of guilty. The Defendant subsequently appealed against his conviction.

JUDGEMENT

The court dismissed the appeal and held: 

1. Trespass and Definition of the Area: The critical issue before the court was whether the area within the three-sided counter constituted part of the store from which the public was excluded, thereby rendering the defendant as having entered "part of a building as a trespasser" under the provisions of Section 9(1)(a) of the Theft Act 1968. This determination was fundamentally a question of fact. 

2. The judge correctly submitted this issue to the jury, allowing them to weigh the evidence presented. The jury found ample evidence to support their conclusion that the management of the store had impliedly prohibited customers were prohibited from accessing this area. Furthermore, it was evident that the defendant was aware of this prohibition, reinforcing the finding of trespass.

3. Intent and Burglary Definition: The jury was satisfied that the defendant had indeed entered the restricted area as a trespasser and that, at the moment of his entry, he possessed the intent to steal. Under Section 9(1)(a) of the Act, this constituted a clear case of burglary. 

4. The court held that the absence of any items to steal at the time of entry was irrelevant to the charge. The essence of burglary lay not in the success of the theft but in the unlawful entry with the intent to commit a crime, which the defendant clearly exhibited.

COMMENTARY

• The legal framework surrounding burglary, particularly as defined by Section 9(1)(a) of the Theft Act 1968, emphasizes the importance of intent. The statute clearly stipulates that entering a building as a trespasser with the intent to commit theft or cause harm is a serious offence, reflecting society’s recognition of property rights and the need to protect individuals from potential harm. This provision underlines the legal consequences that accompany such criminal actions and reinforces the idea that intent plays a pivotal role in categorizing a crime.

• The case shows these principles in action. Walkington's actions—entering a department store before closing and accessing an unattended till—highlight a clear violation of property rights, even though the till was empty. The court's ruling reinforces the idea that the presence of intent to commit theft was sufficient for a conviction, regardless of the outcome of that intent. The jury's conclusion that Walkington entered the area with knowledge of the prohibition against customer access substantiates the charge of burglary.

• The court determined that the essential element of burglary—unlawful entry with intent—was established, regardless of whether the defendant was successful in stealing. 

• This case serves as a potent reminder of the societal imperative to uphold legal standards that protect property and individual security. It demonstrates the legal system’s role in deterring criminal behavior and maintaining public order.

• The case reveals the interplay between law, intent, and the societal consequences of criminal behavior. It shows the importance of clear legal definitions and community awareness in preventing crime and ensuring justice is served for victims and offenders alike.