What does the 'claim of right' defense argue?

The 'claim of right' defense asserts that the defendant genuinely believed they had a legal right to enter the property in question. This belief can stem from various factors, such as a misunderstanding of ownership, an assertion of rights based on past conduct, or a perceived agreement with the property owner. This defense is centered around the defendant's mental state and perception of their entitlement to access the property, rather than whether they actually had permission or a legal basis to enter.

Because of this focus on the individual's belief about their rights, it's distinct from arguments related to permission, accidental entry, or the status of the property, such as whether it was abandoned or not. The crux of the defense lies in the subjective belief of the defendant regarding their legal entitlement, making it a significant factor in assessing the validity of their actions regarding breaking and entering.