LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CRIMINAL LAW — Attempt — Test for Determining Attempt — Acts Must Unequivocally Indicate Intended Offence
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The prosecution must prove that the steps taken by the accused reached the point where they indicate beyond reasonable doubt what the end was to which they were directed.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ogundare, JSC, in Jegede v. State (2001) NLC-1332000(SC) at p. 14; Paras B–C, adopting Smith, J. in Orija v. Inspector-General of Police (1957) NRNLR 189.
"The prosecution must prove that the steps taken by the accused must have reached the point when they indicate beyond reasonable doubt what was the end to which they were directed."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
The test for attempt is whether the accused’s acts unequivocally indicate the intended offence. The acts must speak for themselves. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the acts were directed toward the commission of the specific offence. The principle prevents conviction based on ambiguous acts that could be explained innocently. The court examines what a reasonable observer would infer from the acts. The test is objective. If the acts are consistent with an innocent purpose, they do not constitute an attempt. The rule requires a strong nexus between the acts and the intended offence. The standard is high to protect against wrongful conviction.