Regina v. Jones
England and Wales Court of Appeal Criminal Division
2 All. E.R. 54 (1976)
- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
Christopher Smith and John Jones (defendants) were stopped by the police in the middle of the night after an officer noticed a television sticking out of the trunk of their car. During the stop the police found a second television in the car and that Jones was carrying pliers. Once they were arrested, the police found that Smith’s father had reported that two televisions had been stolen from his house that night. A cord that had tied a broken window shut and the cords of both televisions had been cut. Smith admitted that they had taken the televisions but claimed that he had permission from his father to enter the house and to take the televisions. Jones claimed that he had merely accompanied Smith for the evening and had believed Smith had permission to take the televisions. In their conversations with the police and in evidence at trial, Jones and Smith gave conflicting stories about where they were taking the televisions, how they had entered the house, why they had entered in the middle of the night, and whether they had entered quietly to avoid waking Smith’s father or whether they had thought his father was not home at the time. Smith and Jones were both charged and convicted of burglary. They appealed, arguing that they could not be convicted of burglary because Smith had a general permission to enter his father’s house.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (James, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 791,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
