• In the case of Collins 1973 QB 100, it was held that a person enters as a trespasser within the meaning of the Theft Act 1968 s.9(1)(a), knowing that he is a trespasser or is reckless as to whether he is a trespasser or not.

Facts of the Case

  • L, the complainant, a young lady aged 18, was sleeping on her bed near her bedroom window when around 4am, she awoke and saw on her windowsill a blond-haired young man, who was naked, except for his socks, and whose penis was erect.
  • L concluded that this man was her boyfriend and invited him in where sexual intercourse soon followed.
  • There were certain things about this man that led her to believe that all was not as it seems.
  • She switched the light on and saw the man was not her boyfriend but the defendant (C).
  • C was convicted of burglary with intent to commit rape, contrary to s.9(1)(a) of the Theft Act 1968.
  • C appealed.

Issues in Collins 1973 QB 100

  • C claimed that the judge errored in advising the jury as to the meaning of the words trespass and entry.
  • Could C argue that he was invited in as a defence to trespass.

Held by Court of Appeal

  • Appeal allowed

Ormrod J

  • It was held that the jury had to be satisfied that the defendant had made a substantial entry into the bedroom without L causing him to believe that she was consenting to his entry.
  • The jury had not been invited to consider whether C knew he was entering without an invitation or was reckless whether he did so or not.
  • “We have to say that this appeal must be allowed on the basis that the jury were never invited to consider the vital question whether this young man did enter the premises as a trespasser, that is to say knowing perfectly well that he had no invitation to enter or reckless of whether or not his entry was with permission.’’Pg. 106