QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE ROYCE
|DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS||(DEFENDANT)|
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
THE DEFENDANT DID NOT ATTEND AND WAS NOT REPRESENTED
Crown Copyright ©
(a) The appellant did not know what N and D were going to do when they first went into the building.
(b) He saw them leave the building with items and followed them to D's house where they hid the items in an outhouse (by 'they' we take it to mean that is a reference to N and D).
(c) He warned N and D that they were committing burglary.
(d) He nevertheless followed them when they went back into the building carrying a bag.
(e) He remained outside the building.
(f) He knew why N and D had gone back into the building.
(g) He still chose to remain outside the building.
They were of the opinion that:
"The appellant knew why D and N had gone back into the premises, but still chose to remain there. Accordingly, we found him guilty of the offence of burglary."
"Whether, on the magistrates' findings of fact without more, that amounts to either the actus reus or the mens rea of burglary and thus was the appellant correctly convicted in law of the offence of burglary?"