Norfolk Constabulary v Seekings & Gould [1986] Crim LR 167
Burglary – definition of a ‘building’ under Theft Act 1968.
Facts:
The defendants, Seekings and Gould, were convicted of attempted burglary of two articulated lorry trailers that were being used as temporary storage space during building work on a supermarket. The trailers had been unhitched and stood on their own wheels and struts. An electric cable was attached to each trailer to supply lighting and heating. Steps had also been built against each trailer, and access was gained by the ordinary trailer shutters. The trailers had been used in that way for about one year. The defendants appealed against conviction in the Crown Court.
Issues:
The defendants argued that the trailers were not ‘buildings’ for the purposes of the 1968 Act Under s.9 Theft Act 1968 a person commits burglary only if they enter a building or part of a building as a trespasser. The term ‘building’ is only defined by s.9(4) which states that it may include an inhabited vehicle or vessel.
Held:
The appeal was allowed. The court held that the trailers were not ‘buildings’ for the purposes of the 1968 Act. The court pointed out that s.9(4) Theft Act 1968 specifically says that a vehicle is only a building when it is inhabited, whereas a building may be burgled at any time, whether inhabited or empty. The adaptations made to the vehicles did not mean that their character was changed from what was essentially a vehicle. The court distinguished B & S v Leathley as in that case the trailer had no wheels and was immobile.
Updated 20 March 2026
This article accurately summarises the decision in Norfolk Constabulary v Seekings & Gould [1986] Crim LR 167 and its legal context under the Theft Act 1968. The statutory framework described, including s.9 and s.9(4) of the Theft Act 1968, remains in force without material amendment. The distinction drawn between this case and B & S v Leathley [1979] Crim LR 314 continues to represent the legal position on what constitutes a ‘building’ for the purposes of burglary under the 1968 Act. No subsequent legislation or case law appears to have reversed or significantly qualified these principles. The article can therefore be read as an accurate statement of the law on this point. Students should note, however, that the term ‘building’ under s.9(4) remains undefined beyond the inhabited vehicle or vessel extension, and the precise boundaries of the concept continue to be determined on a case-by-case basis.
