R V COLLINS 1973

Defendant: Stephen William Collins

Complainant: Philippa Janet Last

1) R stands for Regina which is the Queen. the government

intervenes in a case when it has an impact on society, and it
affects social life. It is prosecuting this case because there is a
criminal offense against society.
2) Case citations are the unique citing reference given to each
case referring to where the case is published. The citation for
this case is R V COLLIINS [1973] QB.

3) At about 2 am on 24th July 1971, the appellant, used a ladder

to climb through an open window where he saw the
respondent sleeping naked. Both parties had been drinking
and were intoxicated. The appellant descended the ladder
and proceeded to strip down to his socks. The responded
awoke and saw a crouched naked, blonde male man with an
erection by her window which she thought were her
boyfriend that is why she invited him in. She could not
remember whether or not the appellant was on the outside of
the window sill which was inside the room. Therefore, they
proceeded to have sexual intercourse. Stephen Collins was
convicted on 29th of October 1971 at Essex assizes of burglary
with intent to commit rape and was sentenced to 21 months
imprisonment. He appealed the decision and the case was
heard in the Court of Appeal.

4) The areas of law do the case concerns is Criminal Law.

5) The case mentions only Theft Act 1968.

6) The case started by the Crown Court on May 5th, 1972. The
defendant on July 24th, 1972 was on the road and saw the

[1]
 R V COLLINS 1973
complainant through her window sleeping. Then he intended
to join her room and have sexual intercourse with the
complainant. The Crown Court found the defendant guilty on
a charge of a burglary in that he entered a building with the
intent to commit rape, contrary to section 9 (1) (a) of the
Theft Act 1968. The defendant convicted to 21 months
imprisonment. The defendant took the case to the Court of
Appeal and appealed on the grounds of misdirection as the
jury had not been asked to consider if he was a trespasser at
the time of entry. The judge of the Court of Appeal decided
that his conviction was quashed. It was held that there must
be an effective and substantial entry with the knowledge or
being reckless as to be a trespasser.
7) The names of the judges where sat in this court were:
Edmund David, Stephenson L. JJ., Boreham.
8) The leading judgment in the case was given by the Edmund
David.
9) The original trial was heard by the Crown Court.
10) Stephen Collins charged with burglary under s.9(1)(a)
Theft Act 1968 on the grounds that he entered as a trespasser
with the intent to commit rape. The jury convicted him of
burglary.
11) The defendant appealed on the grounds of a misdirection
as the jury had not been asked to consider if he was a trespasser
at the time of entry.

13) Archbold Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice (37th

ed.). London: Sweet & Maxwell. 1969. p. 1505
Smith, J C (1968). The Law of Theft. Oxford: Oxford
University Press. p. 462.

[2]
 R V COLLINS 1973
Griew, Edward (1968). The Theft Act 1968. London:
Sweet & Maxwell. pp. 4–05.
17) Ratio decidendi is a legal rule regarding the legal reasoning
behind the judgment of the judge or jury.
18) Rule of Law: Theft Act 1968, section 9 (1) (b) which is this: ‘’
A person is guilty of burglary if--... (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. ‘’
19) According to question 17 and the definition of the ratio
decidendi it clear that I have chosen it because it is the question
that answers to the why the judge quashes the conviction of Collins.
20) His conviction was quashed. It was held that there must be an
effective and substantial entry with knowledge or being reckless as
to be a trespasser. Consent of the homeowner was not required it
was enough that the girl had invited him.

-Petros Tsitsios-
26-10-2019

[3]