Law Case Summary
B & S v Leathley [1979] Crim LR 314
Burglary – definition of a ‘building under Theft Act 1968.
Facts
The defendants, B and S, entered a freezer container that had been placed in a farmyard and stole goods from it. The container was resting on sleepers, weighed three tons and was twenty-five foot long by seven by seven feet. It had not been moved for over two years, had door and locks, and was connected to the mains electricity supply. The defendant was charged with burglary and subsequently appealed the decision to the Crown Court.
Issues
Whether the trailer was a ‘building’ for the purposes of the Theft Act 1968. Under s.9(1)(a) of the 1968 Act a person commits burglary only if they enter a building or part of a building as a trespasser. The term ‘building’ is not defined except in s.9(4) which states that it may include an inhabited vehicle. There is nothing which states the building must be occupied.
Decision / Outcome
The container was a ‘building’ for the purposes of the 1968 Act. The court referred to Stevens v Gourley (1859) 141 ER 742 which pre-dated the Act and in which it was held that a building was ‘a structure of considerable size and intended to be permanent or at least to endure for a considerable time’ (per Byles J at 112). The container fulfilled this criteria as it was likely to remain there for the foreseeable future. Therefore, it was a building for the purposes of the 1968 Act. Consequently, the defendant’s appeal was rejected.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary remains accurate. B & S v Leathley [1979] Crim LR 314 is still good law and continues to be cited as a leading authority on the definition of a ‘building’ for the purposes of burglary under s.9 of the Theft Act 1968. The relevant provisions of the 1968 Act have not been materially amended in ways that affect this area. The summary correctly identifies the contrast with Norfolk Constabulary v Seekings and Gould [1986] Crim LR 167 (not mentioned in the article), in which a trailer connected to electricity but retaining its wheels and capable of being moved was held not to be a building — a distinction students should be aware of when applying the Leathley principles. The citation of Stevens v Gourley (1859) 7 CBNS 99 is correct in substance, though the article’s report citation (141 ER 742) and the page reference (112) may reflect an alternative report series; this does not affect the legal accuracy of the principle stated. No subsequent statutory reform or appellate authority has displaced Leathley as the key case on permanent or semi-permanent structures as buildings under the 1968 Act.
