
Best Answer: D
There are two possible forms of burglary under s 9 Theft Act 1968.
Under s 9(1)(a), the defendant must enter a building as a trespasser with intent, at the time of entry, to:
steal;
inflict grievous bodily harm; or
do unlawful damage to the building or anything in it.
Patricia entered as a trespasser, but at the moment of entry she was merely curious and had no intention to steal or cause damage. Her intention to damage the painting arose only after she had already entered.
Therefore, s 9(1)(a) is not satisfied.
Under s 9(1)(b), the defendant must enter as a trespasser and then:
steal or attempt to steal; or
inflict or attempt to inflict grievous bodily harm.
Criminal damage is not one of the ulterior offences listed in s 9(1)(b).
Although Patricia may have committed attempted criminal damage, that cannot convert her conduct into burglary under s 9(1)(b).
Get unlimited attempts to the SQE1 Mini Mock Exam by clicking here,
and enter this access code: passwithus
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect
A is incorrect because the intention under s 9(1)(a) must exist when the defendant enters the building, not when she later approaches the property.
B is incorrect because criminal damage is not an ulterior offence under s 9(1)(b).
C is incorrect because a later-formed intention does not satisfy the timing requirement of s 9(1)(a).
E is incorrect because the absence of actual criminal damage is not what prevents liability for burglary in this scenario. Even if she had successfully damaged the painting, she would still not be guilty of burglary because she lacked the necessary intent at the time of entry and criminal damage is not an ulterior offence under s 9(1)(b) Theft Act 1968.
Test your exam readiness with our SQE1 Mock Exam and see how you perform.
https://www.sqesuccess.top/sqe-mock
For more information, read our FAQ.
Read SQE Exam Passing Tips and other SQE MCQ Explanation Here.
Blog Categories
© 2026 SQE Success. All rights reserved.
SQE Success is a trading name of Sharp Vision Consulting Co., Ltd.