R v Gullefer [1990] 1 WLR 1063
Facts
Gullefer placed a bet on a greyhound race. When it appeared that his chosen dog would lose, he entered the track and tried to disrupt the race so that it would be declared void. He believed this would enable him to recover his stake from the bookmaker. He had not yet approached the bookmaker to reclaim the money when the conduct relied on occurred. Convicted of attempted theft, he appealed. The case required the court to distinguish creating the conditions for a proposed theft from embarking on the theft itself.
Legal Issue
Was disrupting the race, with the intention of later obtaining a refund of the stake, an act more than merely preparatory to the proposed theft from the bookmaker?
Held
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction. Entering the track was preparation intended to create an opportunity to recover the stake, rather than the beginning of the theft itself. Further conduct directed towards obtaining the money was still contemplated. The court applied the wording of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 and explained the transition from preparing an offence to embarking on the crime proper. It did not require the defendant to have performed the final possible act before completion. The outcome depended on the relationship between the disruption and the particular theft charged, rather than on a general rule that unsuccessful schemes are unpunishable.
⭐ Legal Principle
An attempt requires an act beyond mere preparation, amounting to embarking on the crime itself. Conduct intended to create an opportunity for a later offence can remain preparatory even where the defendant has a settled criminal purpose; the final act need not have been performed.
Significance
The case supplies a useful way to organise an attempt analysis while keeping the statutory wording central. Students should identify what offence the defendant intended and distinguish steps that arrange favourable circumstances from steps that begin its commission. The formulation is not a mechanical test: different offences reach the relevant point through different conduct. Read the case alongside R v Jones, where sufficient acts had been performed despite further steps remaining before the intended killing.
Common exam questions about this case
Why was jumping onto the track still preparatory to theft?
It was intended to cause the race to be voided, creating the circumstances for a later demand for repayment. It was not yet conduct amounting to the proposed theft from the bookmaker. The target offence, rather than the unusual nature of the behaviour, defined the relevant inquiry.
Does Gullefer require the last act before completion?
No. The statutory threshold lies beyond mere preparation but does not insist on the final possible act. A defendant can begin the crime while further steps remain. The difficulty is identifying that transition on the facts, which is why comparison with other attempt cases is useful.
What should an answer identify before assessing preparation?
It should identify the particular offence alleged, its intended completion and the acts the defendant has already performed. Without that framework, describing conduct as advanced or suspicious is unhelpful. The same act may be close to one offence but merely create an opportunity for another.