The appellant appealed his conviction for break and enter.
The trial judge found the appellant unlawfully entered the victim's home and committed mischief by causing damage during entry.
However, the trial judge failed to determine whether the appellant intended to commit an indictable offence at the time of entry, which was a significant issue with a clear factual dispute.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial because the necessary findings of fact regarding intent were not made.
