1 Flashcards
When is an act physically or factually impossible?
An act is physically or factually impossible if it is an offence but the suspect is unable to commit it due to ineptitude, insufficient means, interruption or any other circumstances beyond his control.
R v Ring
In this case the offenders intent was to steal property by putting his hand into the pocket of the victim. Unbeknown to the offender the pocket was empty. Despite this he was able to be convicted of attempted theft, because the intent to steal whatever property might have been discovered inside the pocket was present in his mind and demonstrated by his actions. The remaining elements were also satisfied.
R v Jay
A man brought hedge clippings believing they were cannabis
Police v Higgins
Where plants being cultivated as cannabis are not in fact cannabis it is physically, not legally, impossible to cultivate such prohibited plants. Accordingly, it is possible to commit the offence of attempting to cultivate cannabis.
An innocent agent
An innocent agent carries no liability and is not capible of conviction as a secondary party.
The means rea, mental intent necessary for conspiracy is?
The offenders mental intent must be to commit the full offence. Where this intent does not exist, no crime has been committed.
Three conditions to be satisfied for an attempt conviction to succeed?
Intent (Mens rea)
Act (Actus reus)
Proximity (Sufficiently close)
The suspects behaviour must satisfy all three conditions at a minimum to constitute an attempt. Additionally there is the requirement that it must be legally possible to commit the offence in the circumstances. A person can be convicted of an offence that was physically impossible to commit.
Acts must be sufficiently proximate to the full offence
Generally, to prove at attempt the accused must have done or omitted to do some act that is sufficiently proximate to the full offence.
Effectively the accused must have started to commit the full offence and have gone beyond the phase of mere preparation. The is the “all but” rule.
Police v Larkins
Whist it is unnecessary that the principal should be aware that he or she is being assisted, there must be proof of the actual assistance.
Absence of knowledge by the principal that is being assisted removes a common foundation for finding of actual assistance, namely that the principle was unable to proceed with his enterprise with the additional confidence gained because his accomplice was on the lookout for unwanted intervention.
The ingredients of accessory after the fact are:
. Add in later
