R v Geddes

Facts

Geddes entered a school without permission and was found in the toilet block for boys with a rucksack. In the rucksack were a knife, a length of rope and masking tape. No pupil had been approached. He was charged with attempted false imprisonment.

History

He was convicted of attempted false imprisonment at trial and appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Issue

Whether the defendant had done an act which was more than merely preparatory to the commission of false imprisonment, as required by section 1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981, or whether his acts were still in the stage of preparation.

Held

Appeal allowed and the conviction quashed. On the evidence he had not gone beyond mere preparation.

Ratio

• A defendant is guilty of an attempt only if he has done an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence. That means that he must have actually tried to commit the offence, having moved from preparing to commit it to embarking on the commission of the offence itself. Entering a place with the equipment and a plan to commit the offence, without any act directed at the intended victim, is on the preparation side of the line.

Key reasoning

• The statute requires an act which is more than merely preparatory, and the court applied the test stated in earlier authority that the defendant must have embarked on the crime proper and have done an act which shows that he is actually trying to commit it.
• There was no evidence that the defendant had approached or tried to seize a victim, nor that he had any particular victim in mind, so the equipment and presence in the toilets were consistent with a plan not yet put into execution.
• Whether an act is more than merely preparatory is for the jury, but the judge must be satisfied that there is evidence on which a reasonable jury could so find, and here there was not.

Where it fits in the module

In the Inchoate Liability topic the case belongs to the debate about where preparation ends and attempt begins, and the competing tests of last act, series of acts, proximity and unequivocality. It should be read with the earlier decisions in Gullefer, Jones and Campbell, and with later cases such as Tosti, in which preparatory steps close to the offence were enough. Students should ask whether the test of crime proper is workable and whether it protects potential victims adequately when the defendant is clearly dangerous.

Criticisms

• The crime proper test is not found in the statute and gives little guidance, and it leaves a gap in the protection of the public since a defendant with the equipment and a plan to abduct a child is clearly dangerous.
• The court treated the offence as requiring a step directed at a victim, which makes the outcome depend on whether a victim happened to be present, and so it turns on matters of luck.
• The decision is hard to reconcile with later cases that found attempts in preparatory acts such as Tosti, which suggests that the line drawn is unstable and fact-bound.