“Exceeding permitted entry with intent to steal constitutes trespassory burglary.”
Jones and Smith entered a house belonging to Smith's father. They had general permission to enter but went beyond that permission by entering to steal television sets and other items.
Whether defendants who enter premises with permission but exceed that permission with intent to steal can be guilty of burglary under s9(1)(a) of the Theft Act 1968.
The Court of Appeal held that the defendants were guilty of burglary. Exceeding the scope of permission to enter constitutes trespassory entry.
This case clarifies the scope of trespassory burglary and the relationship between permission and trespass. It demonstrates how exceeding implied or express permission can transform lawful entry into criminal trespass for burglary purposes.
You're reading the free summary of R v Jones and Smith. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
OSCOLA Citation
R v Jones and Smith [1976] 1 WLR 672 (CA)
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.