Below I boldened that sentence questioned in the title, and excerpted the fact patterns of the two cases. Please apprise me if you need any more quotations from these cases. All quotes from Herring, Criminal Law: Text, Cases, and Materials (2020 9 ed). p 787.
(3) Both Pace and Rogers and Khan are correct. They are dealing with different situations. In a case of an ‘impossible attempt’ (e.g. where the facts were such that the defendant could never have committed the offence) it must be shown that the defendant intended the crime to take place, as Pace and Rogers states. However, in a ‘possible attempt’ case (where the defendant could have completed the crime, but failed to do so) the mens rea for an attempt can include recklessness as to circumstances.
The benefit of this view is that it provides a way of saying both cases are correct. The distinction between impossible and possible attempts could be said to be important because section 1(3) of the Criminal Attempts Act states that, if the defendant’s intent would amount to an intent to commit an offence if the facts of the case had been as the defendant believed them to be, he should be regarded as having the intent to commit the offence. That would explain the conclusion in Pace and Rogers that suspicion was not enough for that impossible attempt.8 The difficulty with this view is that the court did not explain the decision in this way. The statement quoted in view (1) seems to refer to a rule about attempts generally and not just impossible attempts.
8 Virgo (2014).
R v Khan (Mohammed Iqbal); R v Dhokia; R v Banga; R v Faiz  1 WLR 813
Mohammed Iqbal Khan, Mahesh Dhokia, Jaswinder Singh Banga, and Navaid Faiz were charged with the attempted rape of a 16- year- old girl. The appellants and the victim met at a disco and then went to a house. Inside the house some young men had sexual intercourse with the victim and the appellants attempted unsuccessfully to have sexual intercourse with her. The trial judge directed the jury that if the defendants were reckless as to whether or not the victim would have consented to sexual intercourse they could be convicted of attempted rape. Recklessness here included a ‘could not care less’ attitude. They appealed on the basis that the jury should have been directed that they could be convicted of attempted rape only if they knew or intended that the victim was not consenting.
R v Pace and Rogers  EWCA Crim 186
Pace and Rogers were scrap metal dealers. They were charged with the offence of attempting to convert criminal property contrary to section 327(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. In fact, the property had not been stolen, and the property was part of a sting operation organized by the police. The full offence required proof that the offender suspected the property was stolen. The question for the Court of Appeal was what mens rea was required for the attempted offence. Was it the same as the full offence (suspicion), as the Crown argued, or was intent required, as the appellants claimed?