In R v. Brown (1985), why was the man's conviction for burglary upheld?

The man's conviction for burglary in R v. Brown (1985) was upheld because his entry was deemed sufficient, even from outside the premises. In the context of burglary, the law requires that a person must enter a building with the intent to commit an offence therein. The specifics of how the entry is made can significantly factor into the legal considerations surrounding the act of burglary.

When determining the conviction, the court focused on the fact that the individual had made a sufficient entry into the property, which met the statutory requirements for establishing burglary. Even if the entry did not proceed to full commission of the intended crime, the act of entry itself with the requisite intent was enough to uphold the conviction. This illustrates how the legal definition of entry goes beyond simply crossing the threshold; it also encompasses the situation and intention behind the act.

In this case, the understanding of what constitutes a sufficient entry is crucial, as it establishes the basis for the preceding intent and ongoing criminal endeavor. Thus, the upholding of the conviction highlights the importance of both the act of entering and the intent to commit a crime within the context of burglary.