For, if a defendant intended to act and bring about consequences which would not constitute a crime, he can still be convicted of an attempt if, on the facts as he believed them to be, the substantive offence would be committed. So, if the defendant had converted goods which were not stolen, he could be convicted of attempting to convert stolen goods if he believed them to be stolen. It follows that the defendants in Pace and Rogers were properly acquitted of the attempt if they only suspected rather than believed that the metal had been stolen.
How could the Court of Appeal have got this decision so wrong? With careful interpretation of