What is the ratio in R v Gullefer?

Acts must be 'more than merely preparatory' and embark upon the crime proper to constitute criminal attempts. The defendant must have moved from preparation into actual commission.

What did the court decide in R v Gullefer?

The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction, holding that jumping onto the racetrack was merely preparatory and did not constitute attempted theft.

Why is R v Gullefer important for criminal attempts?

It established the key test for attempt liability, interpreting the statutory requirement and providing guidance on the boundary between preparation and attempt.

What is the ratio in R v Gullefer?

Acts must be 'more than merely preparatory' and embark upon the crime proper to constitute criminal attempts. The defendant must have moved from preparation into actual commission.

What did the court decide in R v Gullefer?

The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction, holding that jumping onto the racetrack was merely preparatory and did not constitute attempted theft.

Why is R v Gullefer important for criminal attempts?

It established the key test for attempt liability, interpreting the statutory requirement and providing guidance on the boundary between preparation and attempt.

Criminal1 min read

R v Gullefer

[1990] 1 WLR 1063Court of Appeal1990

Cite this case in OSCOLA →All Criminal cases →

“Acts must be more than merely preparatory to constitute criminal attempts”

Facts

Gullefer placed bets on a dog race. When his dog was losing, he jumped onto the track to stop the race, hoping to have his stake money returned under the 'no race' rule. He was charged with attempted theft of the stake money.

Issues

Whether jumping onto the racetrack constituted acts that were more than merely preparatory to theft, sufficient to constitute attempted theft under s.1(1) Criminal Attempts Act 1981.

Held

The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction. The acts were merely preparatory and had not crossed the threshold to become attempts.

Significance

This case established the key test for attempt liability in English law, interpreting the statutory requirement that acts be 'more than merely preparatory'. It remains the leading authority on the proximity test for criminal attempts and is essential for understanding the boundary between preparation and attempt.

Read the full brief — free

You're reading the free summary of R v Gullefer. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.

Create free account Already have one? Sign in

No card required. Free forever.

OSCOLA Citation

R v Gullefer [1990] 1 WLR 1063 (CA)

Criminal LawCriminal AttemptsInchoate Offences

Read the full judgment elsewhere

Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.

LLBGDL

More Criminal cases

R v Reece Martin Kelly

[2026] EWCA Crim 268

R v Richard Alexander Welsh

[2026] EWCA Crim 466

R v Robert Michael Thomas

[2026] EWCA Crim 305

This case is reproduced verbatim from the public judgment published by The National Archives under the UK Government's Open Government Licence v3.0. If you appear in this case and believe it should not be published — for example because your conviction was quashed on appeal, you have statutory anonymity, or for other privacy reasons — request removal here.