R v Campbell (1991) 93 Cr App R 350
Facts
Police watched Campbell near a post office where they suspected that he intended to commit a robbery. He approached the premises but did not enter or confront anyone inside. When arrested, he possessed an imitation firearm and a threatening note that could have been used at the counter. Those items provided evidence of his plan, but the proposed robbery had not been carried out. He was convicted of attempted robbery after the trial judge rejected a submission that there was no case to answer. His appeal challenged whether his conduct had crossed the statutory threshold for an attempt.
Legal Issue
Had the defendant done an act more than merely preparatory to robbery when he approached the post office with a weapon and threatening note but had not entered or confronted anyone?
Held
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction. The evidence showed preparation for a robbery but did not establish conduct sufficiently advanced to constitute the attempt charged. Campbell had not yet reached the position in which he could carry out the contemplated demand inside the post office. The trial judge should therefore have stopped the case rather than leave an unsupported finding of attempt to the jury. The court emphasised the statutory wording in section 1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. The result does not establish that entering a building is invariably necessary for attempted robbery; the conduct and proposed offence must be assessed in their particular circumstances.
⭐ Legal Principle
An intention to commit an offence, even when supported by incriminating equipment, does not itself establish an attempt. The defendant must perform an act more than merely preparatory to the offence, and the judge must assess whether the evidence can meet that threshold.
Significance
Campbell is useful alongside R v Geddes and R v Jones for distinguishing readiness to offend from beginning the offence itself. It also separates two questions that students can easily merge: what the defendant intended and how far the defendant acted upon that intention. The possession of a weapon or note can strongly establish a plan while leaving the act requirement unproved. The statutory wording should guide the analysis rather than a rigid checklist of preparatory steps.
Common exam questions about this case
Why did the imitation firearm and note not establish an attempt by themselves?
They were strong evidence of preparation and intention, but the statutory act requirement remained separate. Campbell had not yet taken the steps that would amount to carrying out the proposed robbery. Evidence of a plan cannot replace proof of an act more than merely preparatory to the offence.
Was this simply a jury finding that Campbell had changed his mind?
No. The appeal concerned the legal sufficiency of the prosecution evidence to establish an attempt. The Court of Appeal held that the case should not have been left to the jury on that evidence. A disputed intention to abandon the plan was not the central rule established.
How does Campbell differ from R v Jones?
In Jones, confronting the intended victim with a loaded gun could establish an act more than merely preparatory to murder. In Campbell, the proposed robber remained outside the stage of carrying out the contemplated demand. Compare the acts in relation to the particular offence rather than counting preparatory steps.