R v Jones [1990] 1 WLR 1057
Facts
Jones armed himself and entered the car of a man who had become involved with his former partner. Inside the car, he pointed a loaded gun at the man. The intended victim struggled with him and escaped before the weapon was fired. Further steps, including operating the gun, remained before a shot could be discharged. Jones was convicted of attempted murder and argued on appeal that his conduct was still merely preparatory. The court had to decide whether the statutory threshold required the final act within his power or had already been crossed.
Legal Issue
Could entering the victim's car and pointing a loaded gun with intent to kill constitute attempted murder even though further steps were required before the gun could be fired?
Held
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against conviction. Once Jones had entered the car, produced the loaded gun and pointed it at the victim with the necessary intention, there was sufficient evidence of an act more than merely preparatory for the jury to consider. Section 1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 did not incorporate a final-act test. The fact that he still had to operate the weapon therefore did not require an acquittal. The court's conclusion concerned the combination of his conduct and intention in the circumstances. Mere possession of a gun, without comparable conduct towards the offence, would raise a different question.
⭐ Legal Principle
An attempt can be established before the defendant performs the last act needed to complete the offence. Pointing a loaded gun at the intended victim after confronting him can be more than merely preparatory to murder where the necessary intention to kill is proved.
Significance
Jones is a useful contrast with Campbell and Geddes, where the evidence remained at the preparatory stage for the offences charged. It demonstrates that the statutory threshold is neither mere intention nor the final act before completion. An answer should explain the conduct that crossed the threshold and separately establish the mental element of attempted murder. It should not assume that possession of a weapon or an intention to cause serious injury answers both questions.
Common exam questions about this case
Why did the remaining steps needed to fire the gun not defeat attempt?
The statute does not require the last possible act. Jones had already confronted the intended victim and pointed the loaded weapon with intent to kill. Those acts could amount to beginning the murder, even though operating the gun and firing it would still be necessary to complete the intended killing.
Does possession of a loaded gun automatically establish attempted murder?
No. The prosecution needs an act more than merely preparatory and the intention required for attempted murder. Jones involved a direct confrontation and the gun being pointed at the intended victim. Possession without that further conduct may show preparation but does not itself settle the attempt charge.
Why analyse the mental element separately from the acts?
Conduct sufficiently advanced to constitute an attempt does not prove every necessary state of mind. Attempted murder requires an intention to kill, so an answer must identify evidence supporting that intention as well as the acts crossing the statutory threshold. The two requirements should not be merged.