R v Collins [1973] QB 100
Facts
Collins approached a bedroom window intending to have sexual intercourse with its occupant. The woman awoke, mistook him for her boyfriend and invited him in. After intercourse, she realised he was somebody else. Collins was convicted of burglary with intent to rape under the law then in force. His appeal concerned the sequence of entry and invitation, and the mental element required for entry as a trespasser. The jury had to consider whether a relevant entry occurred before the invitation and what Collins knew or believed about his permission to enter.
Legal Issue
What knowledge or recklessness concerning trespass was required for burglary, and had the jury been properly directed about entry and the mistaken invitation?
Held
The Court of Appeal allowed Collins's appeal because the directions did not adequately address the requirements of entry as a trespasser. The prosecution had to establish not only a trespassory entry, but that Collins knew he was trespassing or was reckless about that fact.
The timing and circumstances of the invitation were therefore important. It was necessary to analyse the entry on the evidence rather than assume that the later discovery of mistaken identity resolved every element of burglary. The historical charge involved an intention to rape under the law then applicable. The case should not be presented as a modern statement that consent to entry settles the separate question of consent to sexual activity.
⭐ Legal Principle
Burglary requires entry as a trespasser with knowledge of, or recklessness about, the trespass. Permission to enter and the timing of entry must be examined on the facts. The case's historical sexual-offence context is distinct from the modern law of sexual consent.
Significance
Collins is a leading case on the mental element of trespass in burglary. It demonstrates why the prosecution must connect the defendant's knowledge or recklessness to the relevant entry. The facts also show the danger of merging permission to enter premises with consent to sexual activity. Modern burglary and sexual-offence legislation must be considered for current problems, while the original decision remains useful for the trespass requirement.
Common exam questions about this case
What mens rea is required concerning trespass?
The defendant must know that the entry is trespassory or be reckless about whether permission exists. It is insufficient merely to show, with hindsight, that the occupier would not have welcomed the defendant. The prosecution must connect the required mental state to the relevant entry on the evidence.
Why did the timing of the invitation matter?
The court needed to know whether Collins had already made the relevant entry as a trespasser before being invited in. The invitation and mistaken identity could not be considered in isolation from that sequence. Accurate directions were needed so the jury could decide the statutory elements rather than assume them.
Does permission to enter decide whether sexual activity is consensual?
No. Entry to premises and consent to sexual activity involve different legal questions. Collins concerned a historical burglary charge and the trespass element. A modern sexual-offence problem must be assessed under the relevant legislation and facts, without treating an invitation into a room as consent to everything that follows.