Legal Case Summary
R v Collins [1973] QB 100; [1972] 3 WLR 243
Burglary – entry as a trespasser – Theft Act 1968.
Facts
The defendant, Collins, climbed up to the window of a young woman at 4:00 a.m. When she awoke and saw him on her window sill. She mistook him for her boyfriend and beckoned him in. They had sexual intercourse before she discovered he was not her boyfriend. The defendant was convicted of burglary with intent to commit rape under the Theft Act 1968. He subsequently appealed.
Issues
The defendant argued the trial judge had erred when advising the jury as to the meaning of the words ‘trespass’ and ‘entry’ under the 1968 Act. The defendant admitted entering the girl’s bedroom. However, the woman’s bed was right beside the window, and the accused had said that the woman saw him, put her arms around him, and then he entered the house. Therefore, it had appeared that she was inviting him inside the building. Consequently, it was argued that he was not a trespasser.
Decision / Outcome
The appeal was allowed and the conviction quashed. Davis LJ said that to be a trespasser under s.9(1)(a) Theft Act 1968 a person mustenter either knowing that he is trespassing, or acting recklessly as to whether he is a trespasser or not. For the purposes of criminal liability an accused should be judged on the facts as he believed them to be and this should include mistake as to his liabilities under civil law. Due to the layout of the room it was possible that the defendant believed the girl was inviting him inside when she put her arms around him.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary accurately reflects the decision in R v Collins [1973] QB 100. The case remains good law and is still widely cited in English criminal law for the propositions that, to constitute burglary under s.9(1)(a) of the Theft Act 1968, entry must be ‘effective and substantial’, and that a defendant must know they are trespassing or be reckless as to whether they are a trespasser. One minor point of note: the judgment was delivered by Edmund Davies LJ (not ‘Davis LJ’ as the article states), though this does not affect the legal principles described.
The relevant statutory provision, s.9 of the Theft Act 1968, remains in force in its original form for these purposes. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 abolished the offence of rape as a component of burglary under s.9(2) and replaced it with assault by penetration and rape under the 2003 Act; however, this does not affect the core legal principles established in Collins regarding entry and trespass, which remain applicable and unchanged. Students should be aware that any modern burglary charge involving a sexual offence would be charged under the updated provisions of the Theft Act 1968 as amended by the Sexual Offences Act 2003, rather than under the pre-2003 framework described in the article.
