Specific intent under s91a and s91b burglary

Hey there guys can someone example to me what's a specific intent is? I have heard it applied
To the ulterior
Offences under s91a and s91b in relation to the ulterior offences.

However s91a has a ulterior offence of unlawful damage -'which is criminal
Damage - I needed to know whether this is referring to simple criminal damage or aggravated criminal damage? Or both.

Howver, criminal damage is one of a basic intent crime as a lower mens rea will suffice for recklessness - r v Cunningham or RVG&R. So how is s91a stating that the ulterior offence must be that of a specific intent when simple and aggravated criminal damage under the act is one of basic intent?

I just don't understand. How can I say intention when the test set is recklessness?

Can I ask where
You are getting your information from? I will like to
Read it myself maybe I'll get a better interpretation.

Can I write you an example?
Say D had a fight with his employer and planned to go to his house with some paint to vandalise his furniture, but when he went he was disturbed and ran back out if the house.
S91a
AR - D entered : he did
building or part if a building: yes he did
As a trespasser: which he did
mR : knows it is reckless that he/she is a trespasser
Intent to steal or inflicts GBH or do an lawful damage therein s9(2)
He has intention to do simple crimjnak damage
As he intents or is reckless as to damage and destroy property belonging to another.


Can I ask whether you have studied this subject before?

I've just read this from a book which states recklessness will suffice for
Criminal damage under s91a. You are
Looking at the act and reading it when this book simply interprets the
Meaning

The damage intended must be such that to cause it would amount to an offence. It might be any of the offences of causing damage created by the Criminal Damage Act 1971. In the case of every one of the offences which is likely to be invoked under this provision, the elements of the actus reus must be committed intentionally or recklessly.

Burglary

26.1.2 Mens Rea

...

26.1.2.2

The Ulterior Offence

It must be proved that D either

(i) entered with intent to commit one of the following offences:

(a) stealing; (b) inflicting GBH; (c) unlawful damage to the building or anything therein

....

Intention must be proved; it is not sufficient that D is shown to have been reckless at the time of entry as to whether or not the ulterior offence would be committed

8. Mr Cooper submits that there has clearly been a muddle in the justices' minds, perhaps arising from the possibility of recklessness being pertinent when considering the offence of criminal damage. The justices might have considered that burglary was provable on the basis of recklessness alone.

13. As it seems to me, the question before the court on this occasion is not whether or not the justices had before them evidence entitling them to reach the conclusion that the offence of burglary was proved against the appellant. The crucial question is whether the reasons which they gave, in the terms of the second question posed for this court, may have given the impression of applying the wrong test for the mental element required. As it seems to me, they may very well have given the impression that they were applying the wrong test. There was, as I have said, no reference in their initial announcement to intention at all; there was a reference to recklessness. In their second announcement, had they said, “We believe it was in their minds to commit criminal damage at the point when they entered”, there could, as it seems to me, have been no room for misunderstanding. But the reference to “a degree of recklessness” which followed, in my judgment, was plainly capable of giving rise to misunderstanding as to whether or not the justices had indeed applied the right test.