Jacko
The actions of both Ingrams and Barras were morally wrong.
Both men tried to steal property which didn't belong to them, but Barras's victim wasn't some impersonal 'legal entity' but a real person with real feelings. He didn't break into commercial premises, but into someone's home. Compare any 'distress' the shareholders of Celador might have felt if Ingrams had succeeded with the distress they'd feel if someone broke into their home to steal.
The distress residential burglars cause to their victims is enormous, far greater than simply the distress they feel at the loss of whatever is stolen.
Night-time burglaries of houses cause even greater distress. The one place where we should feel safe is in our own homes; victims of night-time burglars frequently never feel safe in their homes again.
That is why, rightly in my view, the courts impose more severe punishments for house burglaries than for burglaries of commercial premises and more severe punishments for house burglaries at night when houses are, or are likely to be, occupied than for burglaries of unoccupied houses by day.
Stealing is morally wrong but, in my view, violating someone's home to steal is morally worse.