A v Director of Public Prosecutions

A v Director of Public Prosecutions

The justices' announcements, by referring to recklessness and not clearly articulating intention, may have given the impression that the wrong legal test was applied for the mental element required for burglary; therefore, the conviction cannot stand.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: A; Defendant/respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 June 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal by Way of Case Stated / Judgment on Appeal From Youth Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction quashed; no order for remission.
Legal Topics
Burglary, Mental Element (mens Rea), Youth Justice, Criminal Damage, Intention Vs Recklessness
Criminal Law Burglary Mental Element (mens Rea) Youth Justice Criminal Damage Intention Vs Recklessness

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A

Claimant/appellant

Director of Public Prosecutions

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal by Way of Case Stated / Judgment on Appeal From Youth Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the justices applied the correct test for the mental element required for burglary under section 9(1)(a) of the Theft Act 1968
  2. 2 Whether the reasons given by the justices gave the impression of applying the wrong test (recklessness instead of intention)

Ratio Decidendi

The justices' announcements, by referring to recklessness and not clearly articulating intention, may have given the impression that the wrong legal test was applied for the mental element required for burglary; therefore, the conviction cannot stand.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction quashed; no order for remission.

Orders

  • Conviction quashed
  • No order for remission to another bench