R v Irwin

The appellant was convicted of one count of aggravated robbery and one count of attempted aggravated robbery. The appeal was against the conviction for attempted aggravated robbery. The appellant and two others demanded money from the victim, but the victim did not have any money at the time. The issue was whether the defence of "factual impossibility" was available at common law. The court held that the defence was not available to the appellant. The court rejected the proposition that Haughton v Smith was applicable, noting that it had been widely criticised and had been superseded by statute in some jurisdictions. The court held that the concept of a defence of factual impossibility was flawed and had been resoundingly condemned by judges, legislatures and commentators alike in numerous jurisdictions. The appeal was dismissed.

The court observed that there was no ethical distinction between an offender who failed to complete a crime due to insufficient means and one who failed because of physical impossibility. The common law should reflect this. To allow a distinction between the two would be to endorse a technical, theoretical concept which produced unjust and inconsistent practical results. It would be contrary to common sense and would ignore community expectations that an offender who, with the requisite intention took sufficiently proximate steps towards the commission of a crime, should be held accountable for his or her actions. The court held that the appellant's conduct and intention were identical in both the completed and attempted robberies. It would be a bizarre and unconscionable result to hold the appellant guilty in the former case but not in the latter. The court held that the appeal should be dismissed.

The court concluded that the appellant was guilty of attempted aggravated robbery. The appeal was dismissed.