actus reus of attempt

Question 1

What case is an example of an attempt to murder?

Answer 1

White 1910

Question 2

What happened in the case of White 1910?

Answer 2

D out cynaide in mothers drink intending to kill her, V died of a heart attack before she drank the drink. Convicted of attempted murder.

Question 3

What act and section defines ‘Attempt’?

Answer 3

s.1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981

Question 4

What is the definition of ‘attempt’ under s.1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981?

Answer 4

with intent, if a person does an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence, he is guilty of attempting to commit the offence

Question 5

As with all offences what must the prosecution prove?

Answer 5

the actus reus and mens rea

Question 6

What is the definition of Actus reus in terms of attempts?

Answer 6

a person does an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence

Question 7

What is the definition of mens rea in terms of attempts?

Answer 7

the intent to commit that offence

Question 8

Before ‘attempt’ was defined in the 1981 Criminal Attempts Act, what did the courts use to decide whether the defendant had actually done enough towards the commission of the main offence for him to have committed the actus reus?

Answer 8

they used several different tests

Question 9

What are the 2 tests which were used by the courts before the 1981 Criminal Attempts Act 1981?

Answer 9

the ‘last act’ test

the ‘proximity’ test

Question 10

What question does the last act test ask?

Answer 10

had D done the last act he could do before committing the main crime?

Question 11

What question does the proximity test ask?

Answer 11

were the defendants acts so ‘immediately connected’ to the actus reus of the offence as to justify liability for attempt?

Question 12

Why have the courts held that the common law tests of the last act and proximity are irrelevant?

Answer 12

as the only important point is whether the defendant has done an act which is ‘more than merely preparatory’ to the commission of the main offence

Question 13

What does the act that the defendant commits have to be?

Answer 13

more than merely preparatory for the main crime

Question 14

Give an example of the steps it would take for someone to commit an act which is more than merely preparatory

Answer 14

D buys a shotgun, converts it into a sawn off shotgun. Both the buying and the converting are ‘merely preparatory’ He drives around the area checking escape routes, this is still merely preparatory. D steals a car and rives to bank (still merely preparatory) and he stands on the pavement with the sawn off shotgun. Once D walks into the bank then he has gone beyond mere preparation

Question 15

D buys a shotgun, converts it into a sawn off shotgun and converts it into a sawn off shotgun. Both the buying and the converting are ‘merely preparatory’ He drives around the area checking escape routes, this is still merely preparatory. D steals a car and rives to bank (still merely preparatory) and he stands on the pavement with the sawn off shotgun. Once D walks into the bank then he has gone beyond mere preparation
What case does this mirror?

Answer 15

Campbell 1990

Question 16

What is a negative about the many cases on the meaning of ‘merely preparatory’?

Answer 16

it is difficult to draw an general principle from them

Question 17

What was decided in the case of Attorney’s General’s Reference 1993?

Answer 17

it was decided that D need not have performed the last act before the crime proper nor need he have reached the ‘point of no return’

Question 18

What happened in the case of Attorney generals Reference 1993?

Answer 18

D dragged a girl up steps to a shed, lowered his trousers and interfered with her private parts. His penis remained flaccid. He argued he could not therefore attempt to commit rape. Convicted for attempted rape upheld

Question 19

D dragged a girl up steps to a shed, lowered his trousers and interfered with her private parts. His penis remained flaccid. He argued he could not therefore attempt to commit rape. Convicted for attempted rape upheld
What case is this?

Answer 19

Attorney Generals Reference 1993

Question 20

What act of D in Attorneys General Reference 1993 was only ‘merely preparatory’?

Answer 20

the act of dragging the girl up the steps to the shed

Question 21

What did the COA hold in Gullefer 1987?

Answer 21

they held that ‘more than merely preparatory’ means that the defendant must have gone beyond purely preparatory acts and be ‘embarked on the crime proper’

Question 22

Which case did the COA hold that ‘more than merely preparatory’ means that the defendant must have gone beyond purely preparatory acts and be ‘embarked on the crime proper.’

Answer 22

Gullefer 1987

Question 23

What happened in the case of Gullefer 1987

Answer 23

D jumped onto a race track to stop race to reclaim the money he had bet. Conviction for attempting to steal was quashed as his action merely preparatory to committing the offence

Question 24

Why was D in Gullefer 1987 not found guilty of attempting to steal?

Answer 24

as there was several other acts to do before the theft, such as going to the betting points to get money back.

Question 25

In Gullefer 1987 what would have made D’s actions more than merely preparatory?

Answer 25

if he asked for the money

Question 26

When does the COA say that an attempt begins?

Answer 26

when the merely preparatory acts have come to an end and the defendant embarks upon the crime proper

Question 27

Which case illustrates acts which were only preparatory? (not Gullefer 1987?)

Answer 27

Geddes 1996

Question 28

D jumped onto a race track to stop race to reclaim the money he had bet. Conviction for attempting to steal was quashed as his action merely preparatory to committing the offence
What case is this?

Answer 28

Gullefer 1987

Question 29

D was found in the boys toilet of a school in possession of a large knife, rope and masking tape with no right to be there. He had not contacted the pupils and so his conviction for attempted false imprisonment was quashed.
What case is this?

Answer 29

Geddes 1996

Question 30

What happened in the case of Geddes 1996?

Answer 30

D was found in the boys toilet of a school in possession of a large knife, rope and masking tape with no right to be there. He had not contacted the pupils and so his conviction for attempted false imprisonment was quashed.

Question 31

What would have had to happen in Geddes 1996 for the defendant to be guilty of attempted false imprisonment?

Answer 31

D would have had to approach one of the pupils

Question 32

What is a negative about D having to approach V before guilty of attempt in Geddes 1996?

Answer 32

as this would be ineffective in protecting the public

Question 33

What 2 questions have the COA posed when attempts should be considered under Geddes 1996

Answer 33

1. Had the accused moved from planning to execution?

2) Had the accused done an act showing that he was going to commit the full offence?

Question 34

What case is the most difficult to justify?

Answer 34

Campbell 1990

Question 35

What happened in the case of Campbell 1990?

Answer 35

D who had an imitation gun, sunglasses and threatening note in his pocket was outside a post office. His conviction for attempted robbery quashed.

Question 36

D who had an imitation gun, sunglasses and threatening note in his pocket was outside a post office. His conviction for attempted robbery quashed.
What case is this?

Answer 36

Campbell 1990

Question 37

What can be seen to be wrong about the case of Campbell 1990?

Answer 37

as if the defendant walked into the post office in order to be guilty this is ineffective of protecting the public as if gun was real staff would have been in danger

Question 38

Which 3 cases show situations where the defendant had gone beyond mere preparation?

Answer 38

• Boyle and Boyle 1987
• Totsi 1997
• Jones 1990

Question 39

What happened in the case of Boyle and Boyle 1987?

Answer 39

Ds were found standing by a door with the hinge and lock broken. Their conviction for attempted burglary upheld as the defendants were embarking on the crime proper.

Question 40

Why were D’s in Boyle and Boyle 1987 found guilty of attempted robbery?

Answer 40

as had they entered this would have been the crime proper and so breaking the lock and hinge was an attempt

Question 41

What happened in the case of Totsi 1997?

Answer 41

D intended to burgle premises. He took metal cutting equipment and hid behind a hedge near the premises, and examined the padlock of the door. He did not damage the padlock but was found guilty of attempted burglary.

Question 42

D intended to burgle premises. He took metal cutting equipment and hid behind a hedge near the premises, and examined the padlock of the door. He did not damage the padlock but was found guilty of attempted burglary.
What case is this?

Answer 42

Tots 1997

Question 43

Which 2 cases involve burglary and where the defendants were held to be guilty of an attempt to commit the full offence/

Answer 43

Boyle and boyle 1987

Totsi 1997

Question 44

What is the difference for Campbell and Boyle and Boyle 1987 & Totsi 1997?

Answer 44

burglary is committed at the moment D enters as a trespasser with intent to steal whereas robbery is not committed until D uses force in order to steal.

Question 45

What happened in the case of Jones 1900?

Answer 45

Ds partner broke up with them and said she was seeing another man, V. D brought a shotgun and shortened the barrel. D got into V’s car and pointed the gun at V, V grabbed the gun and managed to throw it out of the car. D’s conviction for attempted murder was upheld

Question 46

Ds partner broke up with them and said she was seeing another man, V. D brought a shotgun and shortened the barrel. D got into V’s car and pointed the gun at V, V grabbed the gun and managed to throw it out of the car. D’s conviction for attempted murder was upheld
What case is this?

Answer 46

Jones 1990

Question 47

Why was D in Jones 1990 found guilty of attempted murder?

Answer 47

as he had done almost everything he could before committing the full offence

Question 48

What did D try to argue in Jones 1990?

Answer 48

that as the safety catch was still on the last act had not been committed