Criminal Attempt: Analysis of Legislation and Case Studies

This report delves into the intricacies of criminal attempt, examining the current UK legislation and its application through case studies. It explores the challenges in defining when a crime is committed, the implications of criminalizing preparatory actions, and the potential for alternative legislative approaches. The report analyzes key cases, including R v Jones (Kenneth), R v Gullefer, and R v Shivpuri, to illustrate the complexities surrounding the 'more than merely preparatory' threshold. The research utilizes a qualitative methodology, relying on secondary data to assess the effectiveness of current legislation and consider the need for reforms. The report aims to determine the point at which a crime is considered committed and if a person should be criminalized before the crime. The report also covers the implications for preparations and the potential for new legislation.

Criminal Attempt
Proposal
Topic & Theme (1.1)
This study is going to be investigating what criminal attempt is and
if it should carry the same punishment as committing the crime. To be
classed as a criminal, a crime needs to be broken. The definition of a
criminal in the oxford dictionary is “a person who commits a crime”1. The
word “commit” gives the impression that the action has already taken
place. Thus, giving the word “criminal” a sense of previous action. This
brings up the question at what point is a crime committed? With their
being around 30 public general acts being introduced every year the law
is getting more and more complicated. Therefore, being able to accurately
say what the exact point preparation has turned into commitment would
be a challenging feat. This introduces another question, should a person
be criminalised when they have not actually done the crime? Currently,
with the jails in the UK being overpopulated as it is. Is sending more
people to prison for crime they technically have not committed yet the
best use of the country’s resources. With that in mind, should there be an
alternative legislation put in place for punishments for preparing to
commit a crime or would this result in the same issues seen with the
current legislation?
Research Aims (1.2)
This study is going to look at possible changes to the current
legislation surrounding criminal attempt. If changes do need to be made
what is the best solution for the issues, and does new legislation that will
place implications on people who are preparing to commit a crime need to
be introduced.
Research Question (1.2)
 When is a crime committed?
 Should a person be criminalised when they have not actually done
the crime?
 Should there be implications for preparations?
Background (1.3)
The current legislation regarding criminal attempt states, “If, with
intent to commit an offence to which this section applies, a person does
an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the
offence, he is guilty of attempting to commit the offence”2. With that in
mind, at what point is the person going past the preparatory stage and
actually committing the crime? In ancient Roman times there was a law
that forbade any general from crossing the Rubicon River. If they were to
do so, this would be considered an act of treason. This idea can be

implemented into current day law, with the phrase “crossing the Rubicon”
meaning that the person who has taken such a task has committed to it
and can no longer return. Which would mean that once they have decided
to commit to the action, they are guilty of it regardless of the outcome.
Judges can decide to use the “crossing the Rubicon” method to
determine a case, they can also look at utilising Mens Rea, as well as
Actus Reus. Oxford dictionary defines Mens Rea as “The subjective
element for criminality, requires that a defendant have both a culpable
state of mind and the particular mental state.”3. Using this will allow for
the judge to determine the mental state of the person in question, aiding
them in the final decision. Collins’s dictionary defines actus reus as “A
criminal action regarded as a constituent element of a crime, as compared
with the state of mind of the perpetrator.”4. Using this will give the judge
the ability to figure out the intention of the person on the trial.
Key Stages (2.1)
This report will be discussing the stages at which a crime has been
committed, if a person should be charged the full amount for the crime or
if there should be a different law regarding this situation. The case studies
that are going to be used will create an understanding that this subject is
almost always left up to debate. This is due to the complicated nature of
these cases with the outcome of them being so unclear. The aim of this
report to somewhat break down at what point a crime has been
committed, if there should be any new legislation put in place, or if the
current method is the best available.
Plan (2.2)
The report will consist of three different chapters. First being an
introduction to the topic. This will include a brief explanation of what the
research is going to be focused around and it will also present the
questions. Chapter two will be about the four cases that have been
selected for this report. The final chapter will be a conclusion on the
findings made in the report. This will be followed by any conclusions made
regarding the hypothesises that are mentioned in the introduction.
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2: Case studies
Chapter 3: Conclusion
Research Methodology (2.3 & 3.1)
The references used within this report have been collected through
a qualitive method. This method has been used as to not flood the report
with citations from other research to make sure that the information
provided is of a high quality. Secondary data has been used to provide to

find suitable answers for the hypothesises within the report. With time
limitations, not enough primary data can be collected that will provide
enough of an insight to be able to draw any conclusions from. Both
websites and research done by other researchers will be references within
the report.
References
1- 'Criminal_1 Noun - Definition, Pictures, Pronunciation And Usage Notes |
Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary At Oxfordlearnersdictionaries.Com'
(Oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com, 2022)
<https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/criminal_1
> accessed 25 March 2022
2- 'Criminal Attempts Act 1981' (Legislation.gov.uk, 1981)
<https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/47> accessed 25 March 2022
3- 'Mens Rea' (Oxford Reference, 2022)
<https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.2011080310
0150312> accessed 25 March 2022
4- 'Actus Reus' (Collins Dictonary, 2022)
<https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/actus-reus>
accessed 29 March 2022
5- 'R V Jones (Kenneth)' (Queensburylaw.files.wordpress.com, 1990)
<https://queensburylaw.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/r-v-jones.pdf>
accessed 29 March 2022
6- 'R V Gullefer' (Queensburylaw.files.wordpress.com, 1986)
<https://queensburylaw.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/r-v-gullefer.pdf>
accessed 29 March 2022
7- All Answers ltd, 'R v Shivpuri - 1986' (Lawteacher.net, March 2022)
<https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/r-v-shivpuri.php?vref=1> accessed 29
March 2022
8- (Queensburylaw.files.wordpress.com, 1986)
<https://queensburylaw.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/r-v-shivpuri.pdf>
accessed 29 March 2022
9- All Answers ltd, 'Attorney General's Reference No. 3 of 1992'
(Lawteacher.net, March 2022)
<https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/attorney-generals-reference-no-3.php?
vref=1> accessed 30 March 2022
Report
Chapter 1: Introduction
The current legislation in place for criminal attempt is that “If, with
intent to commit an offence to which this section applies, a person does
an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the
offence, he is guilty of attempting to commit the offence.”2. Meaning that
once a certain stage of the crime has been passed the perpetrator is
guilty. However, with no real point of reference it can be very difficult to
pinpoint what the exact point of no return is. This leaves a gap within the
law which will ultimately be decided upon by the lay people in the jury. It

can be argued that because the jury is made up of lay people and not
technical experts within law. That their decision could me made with no
basis. However, this will not be the main focus of this report and will not
be researched into as heavily.
With the understanding that the law currently has a gap within it. It
brings up the questions, should a person be criminalised when they have
not actually done the crime? Should? At what point is a crime committed?
Should there be implication for preparations? These three questions are
going to be the main focus of this report. Analysis of cases will hopefully
lead to answers to the hypothesis.
Chapter 2: Case Studies
R v Jones (Kenneth) (1990)
In this case, Jones gets into a car with his ex-mistress’s new lovers
car with a sawn-off shotgun and points it at him, the victim manages to
escape. Jones is then taken to court and charged with attempted murder.
When the case was taken to court the jury found him guilty and he was
charged with 14 years’ imprisonment. There are notes within the
documentation request that the attempt of murder to be withdrawn due to
a lack of actions taken by the defendant. “The appellant submitted that
the charge of attempted murder should be withdrawn from the jury since
the full offence of murder could not have been committed until the
appellant performed at least three more acts, namely released the safety
catch, put his finger on the trigger and then pulled it.”5. The trial rejected
this submission which then lead to his conviction.
According to the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 the claim that Jones
had not completely gone through the acts to murder the victim do
technically hold. However, using Actus Reus its clear to the jury that Jones
had intention to commit a crime that day and murder the victim. If the
jury was to go based off technicalities, then Jones would not be charged
with attempted murder and perhaps only with possession of a deadly
weapon. Taking the literal interpretation of the law would have led to an
absurd ruling. The jury decided that when Jones entered the car, took out
the loaded gun and pointed it at the victim. That this was past the point of
being merely preparatory and meant that Jones has committed a crime.
In this case the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 has been used due to
the extreme nature of the offense. Jones has attempted to take a life due
to his own personal jealousies and has been sentenced to jail because of
this. It can be said that the legislation has been effective because of how
clear Jones’s intentions were. If there were to implications for preparing to
murder someone the punishment should be very similar due to it being
such a heinous crime.
R v Gullefer (1986)

In this case, Gullefer bet £18 on a dog race. Once he saw that the
dog he bet on was not going to win the race he jumped onto the track and
started waving his arms around. He admitted that he had wished that it
would cause for a “no race” and that he would be able to withdraw his
£18. He was then later taken to court with the charges of attempted theft.
“He appealed, contending that his actions were not sufficiently proximate
to the complete offence of theft to be capable of comprising an attempt to
commit theft.”6. With Gullefer submitting an appeal as he had not
technically committed theft the court in the end ruled in favour of the
appeal and the convictions were quashed.
When Gullefer was interviewed by the police he admitted to
“attempted to stop the race because the dog on which he had staked £18
was losing. He hoped that by his actions the dogs would be distracted,
that the stewards would declare “no race” and that he would therefore
recover his stake from the bookmaker.”6. It is important to note that if a
no race is called then by law the bookmaker has to refund any money that
has been staked on the race. With Gullefer’s actions and intentions clear it
should mean that he has in fact committed the crime. However, Gullefer
had not successfully recovered his £18 from the bookies that day and had
not completed the final act of the crime.
Within this case the Criminal Attempt act 1981 has been used to
show that the defendant was not guilty of any theft crimes. This was due
to the fact that he had not gone through with the final acts which would
have led him to be guilty of that crime. Because of this his appeal was
granted and he was not sentenced guilty. Brining a new legislation into
place that punishes for preparing for a crime would see Gullefer to be
guilty. As this case is regarding theft and not anything more heinous, it
could prove as a useful law that would prevent people from taking actions
that could lead to a more serious law being broken.
R v Shivpuri (1986)
This case involves Shivpuri being persuaded to be a drug courier, in
this act Shivpuri collects a suitcase to which they believe contains illegal
drugs. Shivpuri admits in a police interview that they believe that it is
either cannabis or heroin. Due to Shivpuri not being told what it actually
was, once it was inspected it turned out to be a legal snuff. However,
because Shivpuri agreed to smuggle what they believed to be illegal
substance, they were charged with dealing with and harbouring the
controlled drug of heroin. He was charged this regardless of the fact that
it was not actually illegal drugs.
Shivpuri attempted to appeal this due to “he could not be found
guilty in law of an impossible offence, because the substance was not a
drug.”7. However, this appeal was dismissed by the court of appeal due to
the fact that Shivpuri had gone past the point of no return and had

technically committed an offence. It was determined to be immaterial for
Shivpuri to not know what was inside of the suitcase which ultimately
meant the court of appeal would overrule his case to dismiss.
In this case of impossibility Shivpuri was convicted of dealing with
and harbouring the controlled drug of heroin. The aims of the prosecutors
were to prove Shivpuri guilty, in this they had to prove that he knew the
substance was illegal but yet continued with his actions in brining the
substance into the country. “Prosecution did not have to prove that the
appellant knew precisely what the prohibited goods were as long as he
knew they were prohibited.”8. Because they were able to prove that
Shivpuri knew that his actions were breaking the law it fell under the
Criminal Attempt Act.
Attorney General’s Reference No. 3 of 1992
This case is about four men inside of a car, of which a petrol bomb
was throw out of the vehicle towards four men in a parked car and two
men standing nearby. However, the petrol bomb did not come into
contact with any of the men and hit a wall close to them. The four men
inside of the vehicle were charged with attempted aggravated arson with
recklessness as to whether lives are endangered. In the original trial the
judge could not find the four men guilty of attempt due to the insufficient
evidence to prove that their intention was to endanger lives.
The Attorney General then referred the case to the Court of Appeal.
The aim of taking this to the Court of Appeal was to find out if it was the
intention of the four men to endanger life. The court of appeal rules that
“It was sufficient to prove D intended to damage property, and was
reckless as to whether life would be endangered.”9. D refers to the four
men within the vehicle that the petrol bomb was thrown from. The court
of appeal used Mens Rea within the ruling as the men had the intention to
throw the petrol bomb to create damage to property. Within the
aggravated offence of arson it does not require specific proof for
endangerment to life. It does require that there was intention to damage
property and that the act of damaging the property was reckless and did
not take into consideration the lives of others. Thus, the Court of Appeal
ruled that the four men to be found guilty of attempted aggravated arson.
The court came to this conclusion with the help of Mens Rea. The
intention of the men was decided using this term. The men within the
vehicle had gone through with the act that ultimately endangered the
lives of others. Without knowing the full intention of the men, it could be
argued that they never intended too actually endanger lives. However,
the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 still would see them guilty as they have
passed the point of no return and the actions caused by them would result
in endangerment to lives.

Chapter 3: Conclusion
When is a crime committed?
Every case is different and has a different point of no return within
the acts of committing a crime. Due to this it is impossible to give exact
measurements of when a crime is committed. However, with the judge’s
ability to use Mens Rea and Actus Reus to come to decisions, that does
not result in absurdity, these tools are very helpful in creating valid
decisions on a case by case trial. Due to the difficulties faced with finding
the intentions of the person being questioned there cannot be a definitive
answer to when a crime has been committed.
Should A person be criminalised when they have not actually done the
crime?
The Criminals Attempt Act 1981 rule within law is to prove people
guilty, if they are attempting to commit a crime, but they have not
actually gone through with it. The line between preparatory and acting in
a criminal manor is blurred and cannot be defined. This creates issues
within the system as each case that questions whether that specific line
has been crossed or not will have many different variables within it.
Therefore, current legislation and the use of Mens Rea and Actus Reus are
the best methods of combating criminal attempt at this time.
Should there be implications for preparations?
Ruling that someone is guilty of preparing to commit a crime would
lead to a lot more cases. If this was to become a legislation it would bring
about another situation that like the crossing of the Rubicon. This would
bring up more problems for the court and ultimately waste a lot of time for
everyone involved. Overall, the introduction of any legislation that has
implications for preparations would have a negative effect on society and
should not be considered to be brought into place.