Introduction
Attempting a crime needs more than intent. English criminal law requires an act that moves past planning and shows clear movement toward committing the offence. The difference between preparation and acts directly connected to the crime is key to determining liability. The case of R v Geddes [1996] 160 J.P. 697 set a main legal standard for identifying when acts move from planning to attempt. The judgment explains the requirements for proving the actus reus of an attempt, stating that actions must be more than preparation.
The Facts of R v Geddes
The defendant, Geddes, was found in a school’s boys' toilets with a knife, rope, and masking tape. He had no lawful reason to be there. The prosecution argued these items and his location showed enough evidence for an attempted false imprisonment charge. They claimed Geddes had prepared to commit the offence and placed himself where he could act quickly.
The Court of Appeal's Ruling
The Court of Appeal overturned Geddes’ conviction. It ruled that while Geddes clearly meant to commit a crime, his actions stayed in the planning stage. He had not taken steps directly tied to carrying out the offence. The court stressed the need for an act that clearly moves forward the specific crime charged. Having tools and being present, though concerning, did not meet the level needed for an attempt.
The "Last Act" Test and its Limits
The Geddes judgment shows difficulties with the “last act” test, which asks whether the defendant finished all steps they thought necessary to commit the crime. The court accepted the challenge of defining exactly when planning becomes an attempt. It said the “last act” test is not absolute. Even if Geddes had finished all steps he saw as necessary before finding a victim, his actions would still count as planning due to lacking direct movement toward the crime.
Separating Planning from Direct Actions
R v Geddes shows the line between planning (not punishable) and direct actions (making an attempt). The actus reus for attempt requires an act that clearly moves the crime forward, not just preparation. The defendant’s conduct must show clear movement toward committing the offence. The case confirms that planning alone, even with intent, is not enough for liability.
Impact and Later Cases
The principles from R v Geddes have influenced later rulings on attempts. Cases like R v Campbell [1991] 93 Cr App R 350 (defendant found near a post office with a firearm and note) and R v Jones [1990] 1 WLR 1057 (defendant pointing a loaded gun) show the line between planning and direct actions. Campbell followed Geddes in calling actions preparatory, while Jones found enough direct movement. These cases give a practical way to assess actus reus in attempts, requiring proof of clear steps toward the crime.
Conclusion
The R v Geddes decision remains a key reference for understanding the actus reus of attempted offences. It states that planning with intent does not make an attempt. The case highlights the need to separate early preparation from direct actions toward a crime, ensuring liability only applies when conduct shows clear steps toward committing the offence. With later cases, Geddes gives a usable method for applying attempt laws, avoiding punishment for intent alone while holding people responsible for definite criminal actions. The line between planning and direct steps, as set out in Geddes, continues to guide this area of law.
