Legal Case Summary
R v Brown [1985] Crim LR 212
Burglary – meaning of ‘entry’ under Theft Act 1968.
Facts
The defendant, Brown, broke a shop window and stuck the top half of his body through the hole while rummaging about inside the shop in order to steal the contents. His lower half remained outside the shop. He was arrested and convicted of burglary under s.9 of the Theft Act 1968. He subsequently appealed against his conviction to the Court of Appeal.
Issues
Under s.9(1)(a) Theft Act 1968 a person commits the offence of burglary if they enter a building or part of a building as a trespasser with intent to commit certain offences listed in s.9(2). These include stealing, inflicting grievous bodily harm on any person therein, and doing unlawful damage to the building or anything therein. The defendant argued that he had not ‘entered’ the building. He relied upon a previous Court of Appeal ruling in R v Collins [1972] 2 All ER 105 (CA) where the Court of Appeal held that only an ‘effective and substantial entry’ would be enough to commit burglary (per Davies LJ at 106).
Decision / Outcome
Entry had to be ‘effective’ but the word ‘substantial’ was not considered to be of additional help. Therefore all that was required was either an ‘effective’ or a ‘substantial’ entry. Here, the entry was ‘effective’. Therefore, the offence was complete. Entry could still be effective even if the defendant did not enter the premises with his whole body. The defendant had entered with intent to steal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
Updated 13 March 2026
This case summary remains legally accurate. R v Brown [1985] Crim LR 212 is still good law and continues to be cited as authority on the meaning of ‘entry’ in burglary under s.9 of the Theft Act 1968. The requirement that entry be ‘effective’ (though not necessarily ‘substantial’) was subsequently affirmed by the Court of Appeal in R v Ryan [1996] Crim LR 320, where a defendant became trapped with only his arm inside a building and was still held to have entered effectively. The Theft Act 1968 remains in force and the relevant provisions have not been amended in a way that affects this area. The summary of R v Collins [1972] is also accurate. No subsequent statutory or case law development materially undermines the legal principles described in this article.
