## 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.
