S v Director of Public Prosecutions

Knowledge that others are committing burglary, coupled with remaining outside the premises, is insufficient by itself to establish liability for burglary. The prosecution must prove participation in the joint criminal enterprise, such as deliberate assistance or encouragement. Presence while ready to assist if required may also suffice, depending on the findings of fact.

The claimant appealed by way of case stated against his conviction for burglary by the Bridlington Youth Court. He had accompanied two other youths to commercial premises, knew they had returned to burgle the premises, and remained outside. The justices convicted him on the basis that he knew why the others had re-entered and chose to remain there. The central question was whether those findings, without more, established the actus reus or mens rea of burglary.

1. Appeal allowed. The conviction was quashed.
2. The justices’ findings established only that the claimant knew the other youths were burgling the premises and remained outside at the scene. Those findings, without more, were insufficient to justify conviction for burglary.
3. It would have been sufficient if the justices had found that the claimant deliberately assisted or encouraged the others to commit the burglary, for example by acting as a lookout. Presence while ready to assist if required might also have sufficed.
4. The question stated for the court was therefore answered in the negative.

• Bridlington Youth Court: convicted the claimant of burglary on 21 November 2002.
• High Court (Administrative Court): answered the stated question in the negative and quashed the conviction.