The case of R v Collins [1973] QB 100 is a leading decision of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales on the meaning of “enters as a trespasser” under the Theft Act 1968. The decision clarified the scope of burglary when entry is gained following a mistaken invitation, particularly in cases involving identity confusion and recklessness. The appeal dealt with whether a mistaken invitation to enter could prevent a person from being treated as a trespasser, and whether reckless conduct in such circumstances would amount to trespass for the purposes of burglary.
Facts of R v Collins
The defendant, Collins, was a 19-year-old workman who had previously carried out work at a family home. On the night in question, after drinking heavily, he used a ladder to climb to the window of the bedroom of an 18-year-old woman. The woman had seen her boyfriend earlier that night, who was of similar build and appearance to the defendant. She went to bed inebriated and slept naked on a July night, unaware of the defendant’s approach.
At around 2 a.m., Collins climbed up the ladder and reached the window. He removed his clothes, keeping only his socks, and was kneeling on the window sill. According to his own account, he was “just pulling [him]self in” when the woman awoke. Mistaking him for her boyfriend, she beckoned him inside and they had sexual intercourse.
During their conversation afterwards, the woman realised her mistake and discovered he was not her boyfriend. Shocked by this discovery, she reacted violently, striking and biting him before he left the house. Collins later admitted that he had intended to “have his way with a girl” that night.
He was charged and convicted of burglary with intent to commit rape under section 9(1)(a) of the Theft Act 1968. At trial, the defence argued that he had not entered “as a trespasser” because he had been invited inside, even though the invitation was based on a mistake of identity. The trial judge rejected this argument and directed the jury without putting all relevant issues to them. Collins appealed his conviction.
Issues
The central issues before the Court of Appeal in R v Collins were:
- The meaning of “enters as a trespasser” under section 9(1)(a) of the Theft Act 1968.
- Whether the invitation given by the woman, albeit based on mistaken identity, prevented Collins from being regarded as a trespasser.
- Whether it was relevant that Collins may have been outside on the sill at the time of the mistaken invitation, or whether he was already partially inside the bedroom.
- Whether reckless entry, where the defendant believed or had good reason to believe he was not being invited, would amount to trespass.
- Whether the trial judge had misdirected the jury by failing to present these issues clearly.
Trial and Appeal
At trial, the defence barrister submitted that Collins had not entered as a trespasser because he had been invited inside. The woman’s apparent consent was, however, based on her mistaken belief that he was her boyfriend. The trial judge directed the jury that Collins had entered as a trespasser, without leaving them to consider whether the defendant’s state of mind about the invitation was relevant.
The judge also failed to instruct the jury on two important matters. First, the jury were not asked to decide where Collins was when the woman beckoned him inside—whether still outside the window on the sill, or already inside the bedroom. Second, the judge did not raise the question of recklessness. Specifically, whether Collins was reckless in assuming that the woman’s embrace and invitation were intended for him rather than her boyfriend.
The defence argued that these omissions misdirected the jury. The appeal therefore centred on whether Collins was a trespasser in law, and whether the trial judge had failed to put the correct issues before the jury.
Decision / Outcome in R v Collins
The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction. In its judgement, the court examined the meaning of trespass under section 9(1)(a) of the Theft Act 1968. Davis LJ explained that, for a person to be a trespasser in the criminal sense, it was necessary for them to:
- Know that they were a trespasser, and nevertheless deliberately enter; or
- At the very least, be reckless as to whether they were entering without consent.
The court emphasised that criminal liability must be based on the facts as the defendant believed them to be. This meant that if the defendant reasonably believed he was being invited in, even under mistaken identity, he could not be guilty of entering as a trespasser.
The court observed that due to the physical layout of the room, it was possible that Collins believed the woman was inviting him inside when she put her arms around him. This belief, even if mistaken, was relevant. The jury should therefore have been directed to consider whether Collins genuinely and reasonably thought he was being invited in, or whether he was reckless in entering.
As the trial judge had failed to present these issues to the jury, the conviction could not stand. The appeal was allowed, and the conviction for burglary with intent to commit rape was quashed.
Judicial Reasoning in R v Collins
The Court of Appeal relied on analysis from established legal textbooks to reach its decision, since the point had not been adjudicated before. It concluded that the essence of criminal trespass lay in knowledge or recklessness. Trespass could not be established where the accused genuinely believed they were entering with consent, even if that belief was mistaken.
The court also commented, obiter, that civil law concepts such as trespass ab initio or questions of the woman’s occupancy status were irrelevant to the criminal definition of burglary. The focus was instead on the defendant’s mental state at the time of entry.
Key Points
Several key principles were clarified by R v Collins [1973] QB 100:
- Trespass in burglary requires knowledge or recklessness: A person is only a trespasser if they know they are entering without consent, or are reckless about whether they have consent.
- Mistaken invitation is relevant: If an accused reasonably believes they are invited inside, even under mistaken identity, they may not be a trespasser.
- State of mind governs liability: Criminal liability is assessed on the facts as the defendant believed them to be.
- Jury misdirection: Where a trial judge fails to put key issues such as the timing of entry or recklessness before the jury, a conviction cannot be sustained.
- Civil trespass concepts excluded: Civil doctrines like trespass ab initio have no bearing on the criminal law of burglary.
Conclusion
The case of R v Collins [1973] QB 100 remains a leading authority on the meaning of trespass under the Theft Act 1968. The Court of Appeal’s decision to quash the conviction clarified that a person cannot be guilty of burglary unless they know, or are reckless, that they are entering without consent. The judgement ensured that criminal liability reflects the defendant’s state of mind and reinforced the importance of careful judicial directions.
By setting out the boundaries of criminal trespass, R v Collins has shaped the modern understanding of burglary in English law.