R v Jones (Kenneth)
A defendant who pointed a loaded gun at his victim had gone beyond mere preparation, even though he still had to release the safety catch and pull the trigger.
Facts
Mr Jones's former girlfriend had begun a relationship with another man, Mr Foreman. Mr Jones bought shotguns, shortened the barrel of one, and disguised himself. He got into Mr Foreman's car when Mr Foreman was dropping his daughter at school, and pointed the loaded sawn off shotgun at him. Mr Foreman managed to grab the gun and throw it out of the window. Mr Jones was convicted of attempted murder. He argued that his acts were only preparatory, because he still had to remove the safety catch, put his finger on the trigger and pull it.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction. Taylor LJ said that the words of section 1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981, an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence, should be given their natural meaning, without reference to the old common law tests. While the purchase of the guns, the shortening of the barrel and the journey to the school were preparatory acts, once Mr Jones had got into the car and pointed the loaded gun at the victim, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to consider whether he had gone beyond mere preparation.
Related cases on inchoate offences and accessorial liability
- Attorney General's Reference (No 1 of 1975) [1975] QB 773
- Attorney General's Reference (No 1 of 1992) [1993] 1 WLR 274
- DPP for Northern Ireland v Maxwell [1978] 1 WLR 1350
- Haughton v Smith [1975] AC 476
- National Coal Board v Gamble [1959] 1 QB 11
- R v Anderson [1986] AC 27
- R v Bainbridge [1960] 1 QB 129
- R v Becerra and Cooper (1975) 62 Cr App R 212
Studying criminal law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
