... disrupt the match in order to get his money back. He was convicted of attempted theft but this conviction was quashed on the grounds that he had not embarked on 'the crime proper'. Therefore, Gullefer's acts were merely done in preparation for a later offence. In Campbell (1991) D was arrested near a post office, armed with an imitation gun and was convicted of attempted armed robbery. His conviction was quashed on the finding that he had not yet entered the post office, so the acts were not more than preparatory to the offence of robbery. Also, in Geddes (1996) D was discovered in a boys' toilet of a school with a large knife, ropes and masking tape. His conviction for attempted false imprisonment was quashed on the grounds that the acts were not more than merely preparatory to the actual offence. These two cases show the inconsistencies with which the courts ...

See this essay or coursework document in full right now