R V BOYLE

LORD GODDARD CJ (reading the judgment of the court)

The appellant pleaded Guilty at the Central Criminal Court to an indictment containing four counts, the first of which was for housebreaking with intent to steal and stealing in the house. The indictment was put to him as a whole and he pleaded to it as a whole.

The facts with regard to the housebreaking were that the appellant rang the bell and, when the householder answered it, he told her that he was calling from the British Broadcasting Corporation to try to locate disturbances caused on the wireless, and in that belief she admitted him to the house. He was not sent by the BBC at all; it was a trick to get into the house. Then, when she showed him her radio set, he asked for a glass of water, and, while she had gone to get it, he stole her handbag. The question is whether that amounts to housebreaking. In the opinion of the court it does. It is constructive breaking, and the law cannot be better stated than it is stated in Archbold's Criminal Pleading, Evidence And Practice, 33rd ed, p 669:

“A constructive breaking is where the offender, with intent to commit a felony, obtains admission by some artifice, trick, or threat, for the purpose of effecting it”.

In other words, if the householder, knowing the true facts, would not have admitted the prisoner and he has obtained admission by means of a trick or a threat, that is, in law, a constructive breaking. Take the common case where a man represents himself as calling from the gas company or the electric light company. If he is a man from the gas company who comes in for the proper purpose of reading the meter and steals when he is in the house, that is not breaking and entering, but larceny in a dwelling-house, because he has not used a trick to get into the house. He has come in the ordinary course of his duty representing that he is (as he is, in fact) an employee of the gas company whose duty it is to read the meter. In the present case the court has no doubt that the appellant obtained entry by means of a trick; therefore, there was a constructive breaking, and, as it must be taken that he went to the house with a felonious intent and got in for the purpose of committing a theft, he was properly convicted of housebreaking.

The real reason why the court gave leave to appeal was that they might have an opportunity of expressing a view with respect to the practice which has obtained for many years at the Central Criminal Court. It may have obtained at certain sessions though I do not think that it obtains as a rule on the circuits. Where an indictment contains several counts it has often been the practice at some courts, and certainly at the Central Criminal Court, to put the whole indictment to the prisoner and to ask him to plead after the whole indictment has been read. In the present case there were four counts. The first count charged the housebreaking, the second count charged the appellant with forging a valuable security with intent to defraud, the third count charged him with uttering a valuable security, and the fourth count charged him with obtaining a motor car by virtue of a forged cheque. All those four counts were read to the appellant, he was then asked to plead to the whole indictment, and he pleaded Guilty.

The court desires to say that in their opinion the right practice is that each count in an indictment where there is more than one count should be put to the prisoner separately and he should be asked to plead to each separate count. It should be remembered that every count in an indictment is equivalent to a separate indictment; the prisoner can be tried on one or on all the counts. The verdicts have to be taken separately, and the right practice is that he should be asked to plead to each count as each count is read to him, and then there can be no doubt to which count he intends to plead. At the Central Criminal Court it has generally been the practice, if the prisoner is defended, to put the whole indictment at once, as counsel will have told him to which count he should plead guilty and to which he should plead not guilty, and, if he is not defended, to put the counts separately. In the opinion of this court the right practice, which ought to prevail in the future in all courts, is that each count should be put separately to the prisoner whether he is defended or not and he should be asked to plead to each count. What I have said is to be taken as applying, not only to counts which are of a different nature, but even where there are alternative counts. For instance, in counts for stealing and receiving it is better that the two counts should be put. The count for stealing should be put to the prisoner, and, if he pleads guilty to that, there is no need to put the count for receiving. But, if he pleads not guilty, then the count for receiving should be put as a separate count and a plea taken on it.

There is no other point that arises in this case, and, therefore, the appeal is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

Solicitors: Registrar, Court of Criminal Appeal (for the appellant); Solicitor, Metropolitan Police (for the Crown).