Introduction
The criminal law doctrine of attempt criminalizes conduct that moves past preparation and shows a clear intent to commit a specific offense. R v Jones [1990] 1 W.L.R. 1057 sets a key legal standard in English criminal law for determining when actions shift from preparation to attempted crime. The Court of Appeal’s judgment explains the difference between preparatory acts and those that form an attempt, stating the requirement for an act that is "more than preparation" to the intended offense. This case looks at how close the defendant’s actions must be to the completed offense, creating a basis for assessing evidence in attempt cases.
The Facts of R v Jones
In this case, the appellant, Jones, planned to kill his ex-girlfriend’s new partner. He obtained a shotgun, shortened the barrel, and went to the victim’s workplace. Jones got into the victim’s car, aimed the loaded shotgun at him, and stated, "You are not going to like this." However, the victim disarmed him before he could shoot. Jones was later charged with attempted murder.
The Court of Appeal's Ruling
The Court of Appeal confirmed Jones’s conviction for attempted murder. The court found his actions went beyond preparation and formed an attempt. Lord Justice Lloyd, in the leading judgment, stated that the actus reus of attempt requires an act that is "more than preparation" to the intended crime. The court concluded that Jones’s acts—obtaining and modifying the weapon, going to the victim’s location, entering the car, and aiming the loaded shotgun—were close enough to the completed offense of murder to count as an attempt.
The "Last Act" Test and its Limits
Before R v Jones, some courts used the "last act" test, which demanded the defendant complete the final step before the full offense. However, R v Jones rejected this strict approach, stating an attempt can occur even without the final act. Lord Justice Lloyd explained the focus should be on whether the defendant moved past preparation, not whether they took the last step.
"More than Preparation": A Jury Question
The Court of Appeal in R v Jones ruled that deciding whether an act is "more than preparation" is a factual matter for the jury, guided by the trial judge’s directions. This allows flexibility, recognizing the varied situations in attempt cases.
Later Cases and the Influence of R v Jones
R v Jones has been cited in many later attempt cases. It remains a key reference in English attempt law. Cases like R v Geddes [1996] Crim LR 391 and R v Campbell [1991] 93 Cr App R 137 further clarified the principles from R v Jones, stating the need to assess all the defendant’s actions to decide if they crossed from preparation to attempt. R v Geddes noted the importance of acts directly connected to the intended offense, not just preparation.
Practical Effects for Legal Practice
R v Jones provides key guidance for legal professionals in attempt cases. For prosecutors, it shows the need to prove the defendant’s acts were more than preparation. For defense lawyers, it offers ways to challenge evidence if acts could be seen as preparation.
Conclusion
R v Jones is a major reference on attempt law, outlining when actions move from preparation to punishable attempt. The judgment’s focus on acts being "more than preparation," while requiring jury evaluation, sets a basis for assessing how close a defendant’s actions were to the intended crime. This case, along with later decisions like R v Geddes and R v Campbell, continues to influence how attempt liability is understood and applied in English criminal law, ensuring the line between preparation and attempt remains clear, though dependent on case-specific facts. This approach prevents punishment for thoughts alone, limiting liability to acts showing a direct and clear step toward committing a crime. The lasting significance of R v Jones reflects its role in explaining a central principle of criminal law.
