LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CRIMINAL LAW — Attempt — Necessity of Crossing the Rubicon — Offender Must Have Done All Needed to Complete Act
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The offender must have crossed the Rubicon and burnt his boats, meaning he must have done all he needed to do to complete the act before being stopped.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ejiwunmi, JSC, in Jegede v. State (2001) NLC-1332000(SC) at p. 21; Paras A–B, adopting DPP v. Stonehouse (1978) AC 55.
"There must be such evidence as would show that the offender must have crossed the Rubicon and burnt his boats. This statement, if I may explain further, only means that the action proved against the offender must be such as would show that the offender had done all he needed to do to complete the act before he was stopped."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
The “crossing the Rubicon” test means the accused must have done all that was necessary on his part to complete the offence before being interrupted. No further act by the accused was required. The interruption must come from an external source. The principle distinguishes between preparation and attempt. If the accused still needs to take further steps, he has not crossed the Rubicon. The test ensures that only those who have reached the point of no return are convicted of attempt. The rule applies where the offence is not completed due to external factors. The court examines whether the accused had passed the point of voluntary desistance. The metaphor captures the essence of attempt liability.