R v Campbell [1991] 93 Cr App R 350
Definition of attempt under the Criminal Attempts Act 1981
Facts
Tony Campbell (C) arrested after loitering outside a post office, wearing sunglasses and carrying something heavy, after police had been informed that a robbery was going to take place. C had been waiting outside the post office, left, and then returned 30 minutes later, at which point he was arrested and discovered to have in his possession a gun and a demand note. C was convicted of attempted robbery and appealed.
Issues
C claimed that while he had intended to rob the post office, he had changed his mind and had not entered the post office, but was arrested before he had a chance to leave. C claimed that he had therefore not moved from the realm of intention, preparation and planning of the offence into the area of implementation of that offence. The issue in question is when the actions of an accused become ‘attempt’ to commit a crime.
Decision/Outcome
A judge must restrict himself to directing a jury to the definition of attempt under the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 (1981 Act). The test for attempt under section 1 of the 1981 Act is 1) whether the defendant intended to commit the crime in question; and 2), the defendant had done an act which was more than merely preparatory to committing the offence. The law of attempt must be applied on a case-by-case basis and it was for the jury to decide whether the defendant’s actions were more than merely preparatory. While C had intended to rob the post office, his acts were indicative of mere preparation and C had not even gone inside the post office where his offence was to be committed, making it doubtful whether he had performed an act which could properly be said to be an attempt. The appeal was allowed.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary remains legally accurate. R v Campbell [1991] 93 Cr App R 350 is a recognised authority on the law of criminal attempt, and the two-stage test under section 1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 — requiring (1) intention to commit the offence and (2) an act more than merely preparatory — continues to represent the law in England and Wales. The 1981 Act has not been substantively amended in this respect. The principle that the ‘more than merely preparatory’ question is one for the jury, applied on the facts of each case, remains good law and is consistent with subsequent Court of Appeal decisions such as R v Geddes [1996] and R v Jones [1990]. Students should note that this area involves a degree of fact-sensitivity and that different cases may reach different conclusions on broadly similar facts. No legislative changes or appellate decisions have overturned or materially altered the principles described in this summary.
