Criminal Law

R v. Robinson

[1915] 2 KB 342

Facts

Robinson was a jeweller whose stock was insured against burglary or robbery.
He devised a plan to create the appearance that his jewellery had been stolen.
He concealed or removed the insured stock himself.
He then arranged the shop to resemble the scene of a violent robbery.
Robinson tied himself up or placed himself in a position suggesting that robbers had overpowered him.
He informed the police that a robbery had occurred.
His intended ultimate purpose was to obtain insurance money by making a false claim.
The scheme was discovered before he submitted the insurance claim or directly demanded payment from the insurer.
He was prosecuted for attempting to obtain money by false pretences.
The prosecution argued that staging the robbery and making the police report were sufficient acts toward the intended fraud.

Whether staging a false robbery amounted to an attempt to obtain insurance money.
Whether Robinson had moved from preparation into actual execution of the fraud.
Whether the absence of any representation or claim made to the insurer was decisive.

A criminal intention, however clearly proved, is not enough by itself.
Preparation remains distinct from attempt.
Under the approach applied in this case, the accused must enter upon the actual commission of the offence by performing conduct directly connected with the intended victim and prohibited result.
Acts that merely:
create favourable conditions;
manufacture evidence;
arrange the background for a later deception, may remain preparatory.
In fraud, attempt ordinarily requires the accused to begin communicating or presenting the false representation to the person from whom the property or money is sought.

Robinson undoubtedly possessed a dishonest plan.
Concealing the jewellery and staging the scene were carefully designed to support a future insurance claim.
His false report to the police strengthened the manufactured account.
However, the intended victim of the financial fraud was the insurance company.
At the point of intervention:
no claim had been submitted;
no demand for money had been made;
no false representation had been communicated to the insurer;
the insurer had not been invited to act.
The staged robbery was therefore evidence being prepared for the intended deception.
Robinson still had to take a separate and legally significant step: use the fabricated story to obtain payment from the insurance company.
The Court treated that future claim as the point at which the actual attempt to obtain money would begin.
The case adopts a comparatively narrow approach to proximity.
It separates acts preparing the false appearance from acts directed at the person whose property is sought.
Although the plan was advanced and morally blameworthy, criminal attempt liability could not be based solely on the firmness of Robinson’s intention.
His acts had not yet placed the insurer in the transaction or exposed it to the immediate fraudulent demand.
The offence therefore remained incomplete at the preparatory stage.

The Court held that Robinson had not yet attempted to obtain money by false pretences.
His conduct amounted to preparation for a future insurance fraud.
Because no false claim or representation had been made to the insurer, the attempt conviction could not stand.
Use this case for: elaborate preparation and fabrication of evidence may still fall short of attempt until the accused directly approaches or deceives the intended victim.