R v Campbell (Attempts)

Facts

Campbell was arrested while standing a few feet from the entrance of a sub-post office. He had with him an imitation firearm, a threatening note and a disguise, and he had apparently intended to rob the premises. The police had been alerted and had kept him under observation. He said that he had decided not to go ahead.

History

Campbell was convicted of attempted robbery at the Crown Court after the judge ruled that there was sufficient evidence to go to the jury. He appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Issue

Whether, under section 1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981, a defendant who is arrested outside the target premises, having done acts of preparation but not yet entered, has done an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence.

Held

The appeal was allowed and the conviction for attempted robbery was quashed. On the evidence, Campbell had not yet embarked on the crime proper and so had not done an act which was more than merely preparatory.

Ratio

• An act is more than merely preparatory under section 1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 only when the defendant has embarked on the crime proper, so that a person who is still outside the premises with a weapon and a note, and has not yet entered or confronted anyone, has done no more than prepare.

The judgments

Key reasoning

• The 1981 Act replaced the common law tests, such as the last act or the proximity rule, with a statutory requirement that the act be more than merely preparatory, and the word merely means that some acts of preparation may nevertheless be attempts.
• On the evidence, Campbell had not entered the post office or made any move towards the staff, and his acts were still preparatory to the robbery itself, so that there was no sufficient act to go to the jury.

Obiter

• The court indicated that a defendant who had entered the post office and approached the counter, even without producing the weapon, would probably have passed from preparation to attempt.

Where it fits in the module

Campbell is central to inchoate liability because it tests the line between preparation and attempt under section 1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. It provides the basis for the discussion of how early the criminal law should intervene where an offender plans serious violence and has the means to carry it out. It also asks whether the courts should adopt a more flexible approach, so that those arrested outside the premises are treated as attempters where the risk is high.

Criticisms

• The embarking on the crime proper gloss is not found in the statute and may give a narrower reading than Parliament intended, which allows dangerous offenders to avoid attempt liability.
• The result leaves a gap between preparation and attempt which has to be filled by other offences such as possession of an imitation firearm, which are not specific to the intended robbery.
• Treating the entry to the premises as the moment of attempt is arbitrary, since the defendant's intent and conduct before entry may demonstrate the same dangerousness.