You realise that by entering the store after a life ban you were a trespasser?

And, that by entering as a trespasser and stealing : it isn’t “just shoplifting”, but instead burglary, potentially a much more serious offence?

You realise that by entering the store after a life ban you were a trespasser?

 

And, that by entering as a trespasser and stealing : it isn’t “just shoplifting”, but instead burglary, potentially a much more serious offence?

Ha ha ha, that is the funniest thing I've read all day, cheered me up that has Bazza

Trespass is a Tort anyway, and ''IF'' they did call the old bill, all they would do is simply ask him to leave the premises.

Trespass is a tort. Theft from a building having entered as a trespasser is burglary, and moves it to a crime, and a more serious one than mere theft.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/9

Burglary.

 

(1) A person is guilty of burglary if—

(a) he enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser and with intent to commit any such offence as is mentioned in subsection (2) below; or

(b) having entered any building or part of a building as a trespasser he steals or attempts to steal anything in the building or that part of it or inflicts or attempts to inflict on any person therein any grievous bodily harm.

The OP knew they had a life ban. Do you dispute they entered as a trespasser?

The OP didn’t “just shoplift”. They committed a burglary.

Whilst it is likely no one will “connect the dots”, if they did, it could be followed up and prosecuted as burglary.

I’m failing to see what makes that so funny ........

Trespass is a tort. Theft from a building having entered as a trespasser is burglary, and moves it to a crime, and a more serious one than mere theft.

 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/9

 

 

The OP knew they had a life ban. Do you dispute they entered as a trespasser?

The OP didn’t “just shoplift”. They committed a burglary.

 

 

 

Whilst it is likely no one will “connect the dots”, if they did, it could be followed up and prosecuted as burglary.

I’m failing to see what makes that so funny ........

Umm, I fail to see how they could prove the intent to steal. The OP maybe went in to buy something but then decided to shoplift. No intent, well not beyond reasonable doubt anyway.

Umm, I fail to see how they could prove the intent to steal. The OP maybe went in to buy something but then decided to shoplift. No intent, well not beyond reasonable doubt anyway.

Even if they went in to buy something, they were still a trespasser given the life ban. If they didn’t intend to steal anything when they went in then there was no offence under S9(1)a, only the tort of trespass.

The burglary was committed under S9(1)b, when they “tried to take about £30 of shopping” : see the above quote of the 2 subsections of s9(1) showing the elements of the offence : the theft doesn’t have to succeed, merely be attempted.

Given silverfox’s comment : should this be moved to a discussion thread on the elements of burglary?

Thread posts moved to the BG to allow discussion rather than fill up a thread where the OP required help

Thanks, s-fox.

It comes under commercial burglary. Having been banned you do indeed become a trespassers with intent due to previous behaviour. This is strange but why steal in the 1st place? You may get the following.

Criminal record work is then restricted, disclosure required and so on.