R v Jones and Smith [1976]

1. Facts:

• Scenario: D had his father’s permission to enter the house. D, along with D2, entered the house to steal.

2. Outcome:

• Decision: D was held to have exceeded his permission and was charged with burglary.

3. Impact and Analysis:

• Legal Principle: The case illustrates that a person can be guilty of burglary even if they have permission to enter a building, provided they exceed the scope of that permission.

• Implications: This ruling emphasises that the intent behind entry and the actions taken once inside are crucial in determining burglary. It reinforces that lawful entry can transform into unlawful presence if the entry is used to commit a crime.