You are not logged in.
Openly accessible

Singh v The Queen: A Path Toward Confusion, Redundancy and Doctrinal Inconsistency

Arenson,KJ 2015, Singh v The Queen: A Path Toward Confusion, Redundancy and Doctrinal Inconsistency, The University of Western Australia Law Review, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 200-209.

Attached Files
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads
arenson-singhvthequeen-2015.pdf Published version application/pdf 4.69MB 19

Title Singh v The Queen: A Path Toward Confusion, Redundancy and Doctrinal Inconsistency
Author(s) Arenson,KJ
Journal name The University of Western Australia Law Review
Volume number 38
Issue number 1
Start page 200
End page 209
Publisher The University of Western Australia
Place of publication Perth, Western Australia
Publication date 2015-01
ISSN 0042-0328
Summary In Walkington v The Queen, the English Court of Criminal Appeal enunciated criteria fordetermining whether a building contains parts thereof for purposes of ss 76 and 77 of the CrimesAct 1958 (Vic): burglary and aggravated burglary respectively. In Singh v The Queen, the VictorianCourt of Appeal was confronted with a situation in which a trespassory entry had been made into abuilding that, according to the principles enunciated in Walkington, did not consist of any part orparts. Recognizing that there was scant evidence with which to prove that the accused’s entry hadbeen accompanied by an intention to commit one of the crimes specified in ss 76 and 77, the courtnonetheless affirmed the applicant’s conviction for aggravated burglary under s 77. In so doing,the court reaffirmed its earlier decision in The Queen v Chimirri which held that a trespassoryentry into a building results in continuing trespass for as long as the accused remains in thebuilding. In Chimirri, it was further held that if an accused forms an intention to commit one ofthe specified crimes subsequent to the initial trespassory entry and enters a part of the buildingwith that intention, he or she has committed burglary, aggravated burglary, or both by virtueof the continuing trespass doctrine. The discussion to follow will demonstrate that the court’sreasoning in both Chimirri and Singh is not only flawed, but flies in the face of the very passagesfrom the judgment of Lane LJ in Walkington that were quoted with apparent approval in Singh.The discussion will further demonstrate that the continuing trespass doctrine adds nothing of valueto the law of burglary as it existed prior to Chimirri and Singh; rather, its only effect is to addconfusion and uncertainty to what had been a settled area of the law.
Field of Research 180110 Criminal Law and Procedure
Socio Economic Objective 940499 Justice and the Law not elsewhere classified
HERDC Research category C1 Refereed article in a scholarly journal
ERA Research output type C Journal article
Copyright notice ©2015, The University of Western Australia
Persistent URL http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30071780

Document type: Journal Article
Collections: Law
Open Access Collection
Connect to link resolver
 
Unless expressly stated otherwise, the copyright for items in DRO is owned by the author, with all rights reserved.

Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact drosupport@deakin.edu.au.

Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 0 times in TR Web of Science
Scopus Citation Count Cited 0 times in Scopus
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Access Statistics: 127 Abstract Views, 22 File Downloads  -  Detailed Statistics
Created: Thu, 26 Mar 2015, 09:26:23 EST

Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact drosupport@deakin.edu.au.