---

Criminal Law (Amendment) (Protection of Property) Bill

Of course I intend to do that. It is a little way down my list of subjects, but I hope there will be time to get to the Human Rights Act and the implications of the convention. Let us consider the definition of ““building””, a subject that has already tested the House today, and rightly so, as this is one of the particularly weak points of the Bill. Clause 1(2) introduces in section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 a new subsection 1A referring to anybody"““who is in any building or part of a building””." ““Building”” is defined in new section 3(1C) as having"““the same meaning as in section 9 of the Theft Act 1968 (c. 60) (burglary).””" So we must refer to the Theft Act. Unlike the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Newark, this Bill deals not just with domestic premises, but with all buildings, with no distinction between domestic and commercial premises. On burglary, section 9(1)(a) of the Theft Act 1968 states:"““A person is guilty of burglary if—" (a) "he enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser””." We have considered the meaning of ““trespasser””, and I should say that the penalties for invading a domestic property are rather higher—a sentence of up to 14 years—than for any other property, for which the sentence is 10 years. The definition of ““building”” is cross-referred in subsection (3), which states:"““References in subsections (1) and (2)””—" about which we need not worry at the moment, and references to a building that is a dwelling—"““shall apply also to an inhabited vehicle or vessel, and shall apply to any such vehicle or vessel at times when the person having a habitation in it is not there as well as at times when he is.””" The problem is that that does not define what a building is, so we have to go to the case law to find out how a building is defined. I must resort to my old bible, ““Archbold: Criminal Pleading””. The 2005 definition states:"““Any building or part of a building may be the subject of a burglary.””" That includes houseboats and caravans which are regularly inhabited, even if they are empty at times. It goes on to say:"““The word ‘building’, being an ordinary word of the English language, and the context not being such as to show that the word is used other than in an unusual sense, its meaning is a question of fact not law.””" That is about all that ““Archbold””, the bible of criminal law, has to say about it, except that, I am pleased to say, the editor of ““Archbold”” helpfully cross-refers us to the excellent book by emeritus Professor Sir John Smith, ““The Law of Theft””, 8th edition, in which a little more guidance is given.