1. R v Campbell Ratio Previous Precedent Following Precedent
1991 The Courts should use the R v Guellfer R v Geddes
statutory test (MTMP) not
the older tests.
It’s up to the judge to
decide if there is evidence
to allow the attempt to go
to the jury
Mason v DPP
Need vagueness in the test.
It would not be wise to lay
down hard and fast rules
D’s conviction was quashed
R v Gullefer Ratio Previous Precedent Following Precedent
1990 Lord Lane argued that the
R v Eagleton R v Campbell
words of the Act were
aimed at charting a middle
course between the two
old tests.
In looking at whether D
had done an act which is
MTMP, they should ask DPP v Stonehouse AG’s Ref 1 of 1992
whether D had embarked (1993)
on the crime proper.
D had not done more than
preparation, as he had not
tried to get his money
back.
R v Geddes Ratio Previous Precedent Following Precedent
1996 When an attempt will
begin depends on the facts R v Campbell R v Tosti
of any case.
In deciding whether D has
committed an attempt, ask
if he has moved from
planning & preparation to R v Jones
execution &
implementation.
D’s conviction was quashed
R v Guellfer
as they held that no
reasonable jury could
decide an attempt has
taken place, so judge erred

2. R v Jones Ratio Previous Cases Following Cases
(Kenneth) S.1(1) provides a clear test
which should be followed,
R v Eagleton
R v Geddes
1990 not the previous test of last
acts
It is a codifying statute and
so the earlier tests are no R v Guellfer
longer relevant.
Mason v DPP
D’s conviction was upheld
as although he had
committed some
R v Boyle & Boyle
preparatory acts, by
getting into the car he was
attempting to murder.
R v Whybrow Ratio Previous Cases Following Cases
The mens rea for
(Arthur attempted murder is an R v Bourdon
Obiter R v Walker and Hayes
intent to kill only.
George) 1951
This is because intent is the
key element in D’s liability
for attempted murder is
the intent to kill.
Otherwise, D is only liable
R v White R v Mohan
for wounding with attempt
to do GBH. It’s not as
illogical as it seems.
Despite the error, upheld
the conviction as no
miscarriage
R v Mohan Ratio Previous Cases Following Cases
1976 To prove an attempt, D
Davey v Lee R v Khan
must have a specific intent
to commit the crime
regardless of the mens rea
required by the crime.
This means a decision to
bring about, so far as it lay Whybrow
within his power, the
commission of the alleged R v Pearman
attempted offence.

3. Attorney- Ratio Previous Cases Following Cases
General’s Intent was only necessary
R v Khan Law Commission
Report 2009
Reference to the central element of
the offence, it was enough
(No 3 of 1992) that they were reckless as
to the danger to life.
Law Commission
Consultation Paper
[1994] No. 183 2007
Appeal on a point of law
following an acquittal.
R v Shivpuri Ratio
The Act created a new
Previous Law Following Law
1986 approach and D could be Haughton v Smith R v Jones
found guilty of attempting
to do the impossible.
Justified as D has done
everything in their power
to bring about the
s.1(2) & (3) Criminal
consequences.
Attempts Act 1981
In obiter, it may be Crowley & Llewellyn
possible to distinguish from Anderton v Ryan
the earlier case instead on
the grounds of mens rea.
Used the Practice
Statement for the 1st time