R v Jones and Smith [1976] 1 WLR 672
Facts
Smith entered his father's bungalow with Jones and took television sets. Smith normally had permission to enter the home, and his father indicated that he would not ordinarily have regarded his son as a trespasser. The prosecution nevertheless alleged burglary because the entry was made for a purpose outside that permission. The defendants challenged the conclusion that someone with a general licence to enter could enter as a trespasser. The dispute therefore centred on the scope of the permission, rather than simply whether Smith had entered the premises before.
Legal Issue
Can a person with general permission to enter a building nevertheless enter as a trespasser for burglary when they knowingly exceed that permission by entering for an unauthorised purpose?
Held
The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions. General permission to enter a building does not give unrestricted permission to enter for every purpose. The jury could find trespass where the defendants knew that entry for theft exceeded the licence given. Smith's family relationship and ordinary access to the bungalow did not settle the legal question in his favour. The decision requires attention both to the scope of the occupier's permission and to the defendant's awareness of entering outside it. It does not turn every offence committed by a visitor into burglary: the prosecution must establish the required trespass on entry and the other elements of the charge.
⭐ Legal Principle
A general licence to enter premises can be limited by purpose. Entry outside that licence can be trespass for burglary where the defendant knows, or is reckless as to whether, the entry exceeds the permission granted by the occupier.
Significance
The case is a useful corrective to the assumption that trespass depends solely on whether a person has ever been invited inside. It helps explain burglary involving family members, employees or other familiar visitors. A careful answer should distinguish entry already outside permission from a dishonest intention formed only after an authorised entry. The particular burglary provision charged also matters, because its requirements cannot be replaced by the broad observation that a theft occurred indoors.
Common exam questions about this case
Why did Smith's usual permission to enter not defeat burglary?
The permission was not unlimited. The jury could find that entering to steal was outside the licence and that the defendants appreciated this. Ordinary access to a relative's home therefore did not establish that this particular entry was authorised for the purpose for which it was made.
Does every theft by an invited visitor become burglary?
No. The case concerns an entry that exceeded the relevant permission. The prosecution must establish trespass and its required mental element, alongside the other elements of the burglary charge. A theft committed after an authorised entry cannot simply be labelled burglary without analysing those separate requirements.
Which facts matter when applying Jones and Smith?
Identify who controlled access, what permission was granted, any limits on its purpose or extent, and what the defendant knew when entering. Then examine the charged form of burglary. General familiarity with the premises is evidence about permission, but is not a substitute for that analysis.