Q.

1(a) Connor has just been swimming at a pool

where he is a member. In the changing room there is a
screen with a sign which says, ‘Keep out – staff only’.
Connor goes behind the screen and sees a sports bag
on the floor. As Connor reaches for the sports bag
Magid appears. He says, ‘Stop. Don’t touch my bag!’
Connor punches Magid so hard that he falls and
breaks his arm. Connor runs off with Magid’s sports
bag. Explain how the source material will apply to
Connor.

The question seeks an analysis of how the theft act will be

applicable to conner provided in the source material.

In the case above we are informed about a guy conner who's

a member of a swimming club enters into a restricted area
only for staff where he finds a sports bag as he reaches out to
pick it the owner of the bag that appears to be a guy named
magid refuses corner of touching that bag, in response conner
pushes magid causing his arm to break and runs away with
his bag making an attempt to steal it.

Section 9(1)(b) gives us a context of law applied in this

situation that a person will be guilty of burglary if he enters a
building or part of a building as a trespasser, attempts to or
steals something and causes grievous bodily harm.
Connor became a trespasser as he entered an area restricted
for club members after that he proceeded to steal magid`s
bag and caused him grievous bodily harm therefore under
s.9(1)(b) he is guilty of burglary although there appears to be
no damage to property under s.9(2).

Moreover there is a higher chance of Connor being guilty of

burglary under s.9(1)(b) and since the club is not a dwelling
place he may be sentenced for up to 10 years under
s.9(3)(b).

Let's examine how cases are relevant to connors situation,

In R v J.s where a guy steals two televisions from his fathers
house he was held as trespasser as he was allowed to enter
with in excess of permission given to him stealing was not
permitted similarly connor became a trespasser as he entered
an area he was not permitted to.

On the other hand in case of R v Walkington where D was

convicted of burglary by entering into a restricted of store in
his defense he claimed he did not realize that he was not
allowed to go behind the counter still jury decided area was
clearly excludable from general public which was an indication
to not access that area.However connor may not be able
claim any such statement in his defense because there was
no confusion the sign “staff only” was a clear indication for
other members to stay away.
To conclude connor is a trespasser who is guilty of burglary
under s.9(1)(b) as he stole and caused physical injury to
magid, he may be sentenced up to 10 years under s.9(3)(b)
and among all the cases R v Jones and smith apply to connor
resonating with his act of becoming a trespasser while R v
walkington may not show any relevance but show the
prominence of facts that corner was clearly indicated to stay
away from that area still he chose to enter giving a evidence
of presence of his mens rea into the situation.