Facts
- Geddes was discovered in the boys' toilets of a school, carrying a knife, rope, and masking tape.
- He had no lawful reason to be on the premises.
- The prosecution argued these items and his presence demonstrated evidence of an attempted false imprisonment.
- It was contended that Geddes had moved beyond mere preparation, placing himself in a situation to execute the offence promptly.
Issues
- Whether Geddes's actions constituted merely preparatory steps or acts sufficiently proximate to form the actus reus of attempted false imprisonment.
- Where the legal line lies between preparation and direct acts for the purposes of attempt liability.
Decision
- The Court of Appeal overturned Geddes’s conviction for attempted false imprisonment.
- The court determined that although Geddes intended to commit the offence, his actions remained at the stage of preparation.
- It was found that Geddes had not taken steps directly and immediately connected to the commission of the offence charged.
- Possession of implements and presence at the scene did not meet the required threshold for attempt.
Legal Principles
- The actus reus of attempt requires acts that go beyond mere preparation and constitute a direct movement towards the commission of the offence.
- The “last act” test is not absolute; the focus is on whether the defendant’s conduct demonstrates a clear advance towards carrying out the crime, not simply intent or preparatory behavior.
- Planning with intent alone is insufficient—direct and proximate action linked to the offence is essential for attempt liability.
- R v Geddes serves as a principal authority on distinguishing preparatory acts from acts amounting to an attempt, as reaffirmed in later cases.
Conclusion
The decision in R v Geddes established that intent and preparatory steps do not amount to an attempt; a clear move from preparation to direct action is required before criminal attempt liability will arise under English law.
