R v Ryan
Partial entry into a building can be enough for burglary, even if the defendant could not have stolen anything in that position.
Facts
Mr Ryan was found trapped in a window of a house at 2.30am, with his head and right arm inside the house and the rest of his body outside. He had to be freed by the fire brigade. He said that he had been trying to retrieve a baseball bat that a friend had thrown into the house. He was convicted of burglary.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction. It held that there can be an entry for the purposes of burglary even if only part of the defendant's body is inside the building, and it is irrelevant whether he was capable of stealing anything in that position. Whether there was an entry was a question for the jury, who were entitled to find that there was. The case shows that the requirement of an effective and substantial entry in R v Collins has been interpreted loosely.
Related cases on theft, robbery, burglary and fraud
- Attorney General's Reference (No 1 of 1983) [1985] QB 182
- Corcoran v Anderton (1980) 71 Cr App R 104
- Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd [2017] UKSC 67, [2018] AC 391
- Lawrence v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1972] AC 626
- Oxford v Moss (1979) 68 Cr App R 183
- R v Barton and Booth [2020] EWCA Crim 575, [2021] QB 685
- R v Collins [1973] QB 100
- R v Ghosh [1982] QB 1053
Studying criminal law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
