Scribd
Upload
4 views

Criminal Attempts Problem Question

James is potentially guilty of attempted robbery under the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 as he took actions that could be seen as more than merely preparatory, specifically pulling out a fake gun and walking toward the store. The court will need to determine if his actions were sufficiently proximate to committing the robbery, as established in relevant case law. Additionally, James had the mens rea for robbery, as he intended to commit the crime, and the defense of impossibility is not applicable since he believed he was committing a real robbery.

Uploaded by

fkjamali583
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
4 views

Criminal Attempts Problem Question

James is potentially guilty of attempted robbery under the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 as he took actions that could be seen as more than merely preparatory, specifically pulling out a fake gun and walking toward the store. The court will need to determine if his actions were sufficiently proximate to committing the robbery, as established in relevant case law. Additionally, James had the mens rea for robbery, as he intended to commit the crime, and the defense of impossibility is not applicable since he believed he was committing a real robbery.

Uploaded by

fkjamali583
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Problem Question Criminal Law

Problem Question on Criminal Attempts

Scenario:

James, who is deeply in debt, decides to rob a local jewelry store. He buys a ski mask,
gloves, and a replica firearm. One evening, he stands outside the store for several minutes,
nervously adjusting his mask and looking through the window. He then pulls out the fake
gun and starts walking toward the entrance, but before he enters, he sees a police car passing
by and quickly turns away.

A bystander, noticing his suspicious behavior, calls the police. James is arrested a few
minutes later while walking away from the store. He argues that he never actually entered
the store, never pointed the gun at anyone, and never stole anything—so he should not be
guilty of attempted robbery.

Advise James on whether he is guilty of attempted robbery under the Criminal Attempts
Act 1981.

James is potentially guilty under Section 1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981, which
states:

“If, with intent to commit an offence, 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.”

To prove attempted robbery, the prosecution must establish:

1. Actus Reus – James must have done an act more than merely preparatory to
committing robbery.

A defendant’s actions must have progressed beyond mere preparation and must be
proximate to the commission of the offence. Courts have distinguished between preparatory
acts (not sufficient) and attempts (which make the defendant liable).

Relevant Case Law: Actus Reus in Attempts

Case Facts Held

R v Gullefer (1987) The defendant jumped onto a racetrack to void a race and reclaim his
bet. His act was only preparatory, so he was not guilty.

R v Campbell (1991) The defendant was outside a post office with an imitation firearm and
a threatening note but never entered. His actions were only preparatory, so he was not
guilty.

R v Jones (1990) The defendant bought a gun, loaded it, pointed it at the victim’s head, and
said, “You’re not going to like this.” His act was more than preparatory, so he was guilty of
attempted murder.

Law Tutor: Barrister Feroz Khan


Problem Question Criminal Law

R v Geddes (1996) The defendant was found in a school toilet with a knife, rope, and tape,
but had not approached any child. His actions were only preparatory, so he was not guilty.

Application to James:

• James bought disguises and a fake gun – This is mere preparation, not an attempt.

• He stood outside adjusting his mask and looking into the store – Still preparatory, as he
had not yet engaged in the crime.

• He pulled out the gun and began walking toward the entrance – This is the crucial point in
determining liability.

If the court follows Campbell (1991), it may rule that standing outside with a weapon is
only preparatory. However, if the court follows Jones (1990), it may find that pulling out a
weapon and walking toward the crime scene is more than preparatory.

If James had entered the store or pointed the gun at someone, it would clearly be an attempt.
Since he turned away before entry, the court will have to decide whether walking toward the
store with the gun was sufficiently proximate to committing robbery.

2. Mens Rea – James must have had intention to commit the full offence of robbery.

James must have had specific intent to commit robbery (i.e., steal using force or threat of
force).

Relevant Case Law: Mens Rea in Attempts

Case Facts Held

R v Mohan (1975) The defendant drove his car toward a police officer to scare him. Direct
intent is required for an attempt—recklessness is insufficient.

R v Whybrow (1951) The defendant wired his wife’s bath to electrocute her. For attempted
murder, intent to kill was required (not just GBH).

Attorney General’s Reference (No. 3 of 1992) (1994) The defendant threw a petrol bomb at
a car but missed.

Application to James:

• James planned the robbery, bought a disguise, and armed himself with a fake gun.

• The fact that he walked toward the store with the weapon strongly suggests intent.

• He only stopped because of the police presence, not because he changed his mind.

Law Tutor: Barrister Feroz Khan


Problem Question Criminal Law

Since intent is judged at the time of the act, James clearly had the mens rea for robbery,
satisfying this element.

Defenses

Impossibility:

• James might claim that because he had a fake gun, the robbery could never succeed.

• However, R v Shivpuri (1986) established that factual impossibility is not a defense.

• Since James believed he was committing a real robbery, he can still be convicted.

Conclusion:

The case could go either way, depending on whether the court sees walking toward the store
with a weapon as more than merely preparatory. If they do, James will be guilty of
attempted robbery.

Law Tutor: Barrister Feroz Khan

You might also like