Jones v Smith [1976] 1 WLR 672

Facts

  • The case concerned whether a person who lawfully enters property with permission becomes a trespasser if, while present, they form the intent to commit a crime.
  • The defendant entered premises with granted access, either for a specific purpose or as a general visitor.
  • After lawful entry, the defendant decided to commit a criminal act on the premises.
  • The Court of Appeal considered how the timing and formation of criminal intent relate to the legal status of a person’s presence on private property.

Issues

  1. Does criminal intent formed after lawful entry retroactively revoke permission, rendering the person a trespasser?
  2. Is the timing of mens rea formation sufficient to transform a lawful entrant into a trespasser for the purposes of criminal liability?
  3. How does the decision in Jones and Smith refine principles from previous cases regarding trespass following lawful entry?

Decision

  • The Court held that permission to enter property ends once a person forms the intent to commit a crime while on the premises.
  • Lawful presence is revoked at the moment criminal intent is formed, making continued presence trespassory from that point.
  • The timing of mens rea need not coincide with the act of entry; formation of intent after entry suffices for criminal liability.
  • The judgment clarified and extended principles from earlier authorities, particularly regarding the role of intent in transforming lawful entry into trespass.

Legal Principles

  • Lawful entry under permission is contingent on the purpose of the visit; forming criminal intent revokes that permission.
  • Mens rea need not pre-exist at the moment of entry; liability turns on subsequent intent to commit a crime while present.
  • The case distinguishes from earlier authorities such as The Six Carpenters’ Case by focusing on the effect of intent rather than mere misuse of access rights.
  • The framework established in Jones and Smith applies to property offences, including burglary and theft, where the trespass element is present.

Conclusion

Jones v Smith [1976] 1 WLR 672 established that forming criminal intent after lawful entry cancels prior permission, making presence trespassory and supporting liability for property offences. The case provides a clear test linking the revocation of permission to the formation of mens rea, influencing the prosecution of burglary and other property crimes.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal