Kembaraxtra-Case Law-Campbell (1991)

Facts

• D planned to rob a post office.
• He drove to the post office on a motorcycle.
• He walked towards the post office wearing a motorcycle helmet.
• He carried an imitation gun and a threatening note, intending to hand it to the cashier.
• D was arrested before he entered the post office.
• He was convicted of attempted robbery at trial.

Legal Principle Established

• Approval of Gullefer test: The court approved the Gullefer test as representing the true meaning of "attempt" under Section 1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981.
• Common law tests for attempt were deemed irrelevant.

Application to Campbell

• The court found D had not "embarked upon the crime proper."
• Reasons for acquittal:
• His weapon was an imitation.
• He made no attempt to remove the imitation weapon from his pocket.
• He was not wearing a disguise (though he wore a motorcycle helmet, this was not deemed a disguise for robbery purposes in this context).
• He had not entered the post office.
• Conclusion: D's acts were considered merely preparatory, not an attempt. Therefore, he was not guilty of attempted robbery.

Significance

• This case reinforces a strict interpretation of "attempt" under the 1981 Act, distinguishing between preparatory acts and those acts that are sufficiently proximate to the full offense.
• It highlights that even with clear intent and significant preparation, the physical act must go beyond mere preparation and be part of the execution of the crime itself.