## Facts

- The appellant, Jones, planned to kill his ex-girlfriend’s new partner.
- He obtained a shotgun, shortened its barrel, proceeded to the victim’s workplace, and entered the victim's car.
- Jones aimed the loaded shotgun at the victim and said, "You are not going to like this."
- The victim managed to disarm Jones before he could fire.
- Jones was charged with attempted murder.

## Issues

1. Whether Jones’s conduct constituted acts that were "more than merely preparatory" to the commission of murder under criminal attempt law.
2. Whether it was necessary for Jones to perform the final act toward the intended offense for attempted murder liability.
3. Whether the determination of acts being "more than preparation" is a matter of law or fact, and who should decide this issue.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal upheld Jones’s conviction for attempted murder.
- The court found that Jones’s actions—obtaining and modifying the shotgun, seeking out the victim, entering his car, and aiming the loaded weapon—went beyond mere preparation and formed part of the attempt.
- The strict "last act" test was rejected; the court held that an attempt can occur prior to taking the final step toward the completed offense.
- The judgment determined that whether conduct is "more than preparatory" is a factual question for the jury, subject to the judge’s proper directions.

## Legal Principles

- The actus reus for attempt requires conduct that is "more than merely preparatory" toward the intended offense.
- Rejects the necessity of the "last act" test; a defendant need not have performed the final (or only remaining) act before completion of the substantive offense.
- The distinction between preparation and attempt is a matter for jury assessment, with guidance from the trial judge.
- This principle prevents liability for mere intention, requiring an overt step connected to the commission of the offense.

## Conclusion

R v Jones is a leading authority on criminal attempts, clarifying that acts "more than merely preparatory" may suffice for liability and confirming the jury’s role in assessing the evidential line between mere preparation and attempt. The case remains influential in defining the threshold of criminal attempt in English law.

R v Jones [1990] 1 WLR 1057