R v Collins

English case infobox
name=R v Collins
court=Court of Appeal - Criminal Division
date_decided= 5 May 1972
full_name= The Crown against Collins
citations= [1973] QB 100
judges= Edmund Davies and Stephenson L.JJ. and Boreham J.
Cases_cited=None
Legislation_cited=Theft Act 1968, Section 9(1)(a)
prior_actions=None
subsequent_actions=None
Keywords=Burglary; Trespass

R v Collins 1973 QB 100 is a case decided by the Court of Appeal of England and Wales which examined the meaning of "enters as a trespasser" in the definition of burglary. Collins was a 19 year old man who had been convicted of burglary with intent to commit rape [now redefined as trespass with intent to commit a sexual offence under s63 Sexual Offences Act 2003] and sentenced to a term of imprisonment.

Facts

The alleged victim was a young woman, X, who after an evening's drinking, had gone to bed. Collins, likewise, had taken a quantity of drink and was desirous of sexual intercourse. He went to X's house hoping to have sex with her. Having climbed up a ladder, peered into X's bedroom through the window and seen her sleeping, he descended to ground level and undressed except for his socks. He then climbed back up the ladder and was about to enter the bedroom when X awoke; seeing an almost naked man with an erect penis, she assumed that this was her boyfriend paying her a romantic nocturnal visit and invited Collins to enter. After a little while, she realised that he was not, in fact, her boyfriend, and raised the alarm. Collins was charged with burglary with intent to commit rape, tried at the Essex Assizes and convicted. He was sentenced to 21 months imprisonment and appealed against conviction.

Trial

Collins' barrister submitted during the trial that because X had invited him into her bedroom, even under a mistake of fact, Collins had not "entered as a trespasser". The judge rejected this submission. There had been an issue as to where exactly Collins had been at the time of X's mistaken invitation- outside the window on the sill, or already inside the bedroom- and the evidence was inconclusive on that point.

Decision

The point in issue had not previously been decided so there was no authority on which the court could rely; instead, textbooks were consulted. [cite book
last =
first =
authorlink =
coauthors =
title = Archbold's Criminal Pleading Evidence & Practice, 37th Ed.
publisher = Sweet & Maxwell
year = 1969
location = London
pages = 1505
url =
doi =
id =
isbn = ] [cite book
last = Smith
first = J C
authorlink =
coauthors =
title = The Law of Theft
publisher = Oxford University Press
year = 1968
location = Oxford
pages = 462
url =
doi =
id =
isbn = ] [cite book
last = Griew
first = Edward
authorlink =
coauthors =
title = The Theft Act 1968
publisher = Sweet & Maxwell
year = 1968
location = London
pages = 4-05
url =
doi =
id =
isbn = ] Having examined these opinions, the court ruled that the person entering cquote|must do so knowing that he is a trespasser and nevertheless deliberately enters, or, at the very least, is reckless as to whether or not he is entering the premises of another without the other party's consent.The court considered that on the facts, the judge had misdirected the jury on this test, even though the timing had been unclear. It was also considered obiter that civil law concepts such as "trespass ab initio" [that is, lawful entry on land or premises followed by the commission of an unlawful act renders the entry trespassory (Shorland v Govett 1826 5 B&C 485)] and X's occupancy status [That is, she was neither the freeholder nor a tenant of the premises] were irrelevant to the criminal law.
Accordingly, the court allowed the appeal on the basis that the jury had never been invited to consider whether in fact Collins was a trespasser when he entered X's bedroom.

References

* [http://www.swarb.co.uk/c/cacd/1972r_collins.html R v Collins at lawindexpro]