Police Nfa And Subsequent Court Summons

[Meems216]

In 2016 a family member was interviewed regarding a burglary wchich was then nfa’d by the police. 2 years later they have received a summons for court for the same incident however the summons states trespassing with intent. If something is NFA is it common to then be summonsed to court without further questioning by police?

[EDDIE51]

Burglary and Trespassing with intent to burgle are 2 different offences. Just because there is nfa on the actual burglary does not mean they can't be summoned for the trespass with intent.

[Peter Pedant]

Google nfa police
I got:
"I had on a few months ago with a chap who smashed his bedroom door. He was NFA'd but due to the NFA wording on the sheet he was eligible to be proceeded further - This happened when the DI of the DVU got wind of it and refused to write the crime off."

which is kinda what I thought - it is and it isnt depending on the day of the week and direction of the wind

You need a lawyer-
and the original letter - as it seems to depend on the wording

[New Judge]

I don’t understand. “With intent” to do what?

He cannot be charged with trespassing with intent to commit burglary because the definition of burglary is entering a building (or part thereof) - i.e. “trespassing” - with intent to either steal, inflict GBH or commit damage. So trespassing is an element of the offence of burglary and it must be accompanied by either an intent to do one of the things I mentioned or to actually succeed in stealing or inflicting GBH (or attempting to do so). If he was a trespasser all they need to do is show that he either intended or succeeded in stealing, injuring or damaging. In short, trespassing without such an intent (or success) is not a criminal offence and trespassing with such an intent (or success) is burglary.

Anyway, whatever he has been charged with he needs to see a solicitor. Two years an awfully long time. Your relative has a "reasonable expectation" that having had the original allegation NFA'd, that the same incident should not give rise to (possibly) a slightly different but similar charge after so long. Unless fresh evidence has come to light (about which he should have been questioned to give him a chance to explain it) he arguably has a case for "abuse of process".

[Meems216]

Sorry it should read trespassing with intent to steal. The building was an empty commercial property.

[New Judge]

"Sorry it should read trespassing with intent to steal."

Then that's burglary (see my first paragraph).

He might care to ask the police what they see as the difference between "trespassing with intent to steal" and "burglary".

Whatever their answer my second paragraph still stands.

[EDDIE51]

^NJ . Is 'Burglary' specific to residential property? I thought it was.
So if the 2nd offence is trespassing with intent to steal ,from a commercial property, then is it a seperate charge with no connection to the original burglary investigation??

[Davemano]

Prior to the Theft Act 1967, Burglary related to dwelling houses, and the offence was committed only between 2100 and 0600 if I remember right. AT any other time it was simply housebreaking. The Theft Act altered this, and all breaking into property is Burglary, and the time is immaterial.

[New Judge]

Is 'Burglary' specific to residential property? I thought it was.

No it isn’t, Eddie. Although there is a considerable difference between the two in the sentencing guidelines (with domestic burglary being considered far more serious), as Dave explains, burglary can be committed on either type of property. Here’s a paragraph from the CPS charging guidance:

“The definitions of burglary offences in section 9 of the Theft Act 1968 do not distinguish directly between the burglary of a dwelling or a non-dwelling. There are, however, important differences in respect of venue and sentencing.
Any charge or count on an indictment should therefore specifically plead whether the building is a dwelling or otherwise.”

An important point to note with burglary (and often misunderstood) is that forced entry is not required for the offence to be made out. If a person simply walks through an open door into a building or part of a building where he should not go (provided he has an intention to steal, inflict GBH or commit damage , or actually does so) he is guilty of burglary. This is why I cannot understand the charge the OP’s relative is said to face. By definition, trespassing with intent to steal is burglary.

[Peter Pedant]

thx NJ - clear
piddy so many cases end in - - - see a lawyer for chrissakes

[Jackdaw33]

You forgot about trespassing with attempt to commit rape. Remember R v Collins?

[Jackdaw33]

Sorry, for attempt read intent.

[New Judge]

The only thing I forgot to add is that a possible explanation is that there is no building involved. Burglary can only be committed where entry to a building (or part of a building) is evident. If the accusation is, say, that the accused entered a field with the intent to steal (perhaps some farm equipment, for example) then burglary is not appropriate. Perhaps the OP can put me out of my misery by explaining exactly what is alleged.

[New Judge]

"You forgot about trespassing with attempt to commit rape."

No, I didn't forget it, jd. There are offences connected with trespass such as the one you mention. That's why I specifically asked "with intent to do what?" The OP answered that it was "intent to steal".

[Jackdaw33]

As has been pointed out there was no legal definition of theft before the 1968 Act. There were three offences, not including fraud, robbery or blackmail. Simple theft was termed larceny.