attempted offences Flashcards
what is meant by an attempt?
when a person tries to commit an offence but fails to complete it.
for example, the defendant points a gun at the victim who is across the street. Just as he pulls the trigger the victim bends down to tie their shoelace. the bullet misses and goes over the victims head.
this scenario would lead to an attempted murder charge.
R v white
the defendant put cyanide in his mothers drink, intending to kill her . she died of a heart attack before she could drink it. He tried to commit murder but did not actually kill his mother he was convicted of attempted murder.
criminal attempts act 1981
s1(1) if with intent to commit an offence to which this section applied, a person does an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commision of the offence he is guilty of attempting to commit the offence.
AR- the person does an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence.
MR - intent to commit that offence
what does ‘more than merely preparatory mean?
- deciding to rob a bank
-buying a shot gun
-making it a sawn -off shotgun - finding a bank to rob
- checking out the getaway route
- stealing a getaway car
- standing outside a bank
- standing inside the bank - more than merely preparatory
Attorney - general’s reference No1 of 1992 1993
D dragged a girl up some steps into a shed. He lowered his trousers and interfered with her private parts. His penis remained flaccid. He argued that he could not therefore attempt to commit rape . his conviction for attempted rape was upheld.
Looking at the whole of D’s acts this seems a sensible decision. However, if he had stopped immediately after he had dragged the girl to the shed, and before he lowered his trousers, then it is unlikely he would have been convicted. His act of dragging her was probably ‘merely preparatory.’
legal principle: the d need not have performed the last before the crime nor need he/she reach the point of no return.
R v gullefer 1987
D jumped onto a race track in order to have the race declared void and so enable him to reclaim money he had bet on the race. His conviction for attempting to steal was quashed because his action was merely preparatory to commiting the offence.
jumping on the track was not part of the theft he still has several steps to complete before he gets to the theft. however asking for the money would be more than merely preparatory.
legal principle: the defendant must have gone beyond purely preparatory act and be embarked on the crime proper.
R v Geddes 1996
D was found in the boys toilets block in a school, in possesion of a large kitchen knife, some rope and some masking tape. he had no right to be in the school. He had not contacted any of the pupils. His conviction for attempted false imprisonment was quashed.
This result appears unjust as the D was clearly going to commit an offence. if the law of attempt is to be effective in protecting people from the main offence, then surely he should be guilty of an attempt at any point. is it sensible to wait till he approaches a child.
legal principle: preparatory action stop when the D embarks on the crime proper.
what two questions did the court of appeal suggest ?
- Had the accused moved from planning or preparation to execution or implementation?
- Had the accused done an act showing that he was actually trying to commit the full offence, or had he got only as far as getting ready or putting himself in a position or equipping himself to do so?
Following these rules would mean that Geddes would not be guilty of attempted crimes as he had not moved from previous to starting the crime. He only got as far as getting ready.
R v campbell 1990
D who had an imitation gun, sunglasses and a threatening note in his pocket, was in the street outside a post office. His conviction for attempted robbery was quashed.
The next step in this case would have been for D to enter the post office. Again , if the law is attempted to be effective in protecting people from the main offence surely he should have been guilty of an attempt at this point ? Is it sensible to wait until he enters the post office? if the gun had been real then customers and staff would have been put at risk.
R v Boyle and Boyle 1987
The defendants were found standing by a door of which the lock and one hinge were broken. Their conviction for attempting burglary was upheld.
The court of appeal held that the test to use was whether the defendant was embarking on the crime proper. In this case, once the defendants had entered they would be committing burglary, so trying to gain was an attempt.
legal principle: in cases where there has been an attempt the D can be guilty of an attempt to commit the full offence.
R v Tosti 1997
D intended to burgle premises. He took metal cutting Equipment with him and hid it behind a hedge near the premises. He then examined the padlock on the door. He did not damage the padlock he was found guilty of attempted burglary.
Both these cases are different to Campbell as a burglary is committed the moment the D enters the property as a trespasser with intent to steal. Robbery is not committed until D actually steals, in the course of which he uses force - walking into a building still needs another step.
R v Jones 1990
D’s partner told him that she wanted their relationship to end and that she was seeing another man, V. D bought a shotgun and shortened the barrel. D then found V , who was in his car D was wearing a crash helmet with the visor down, got into V’s car and pointed the gun at V. V grabbed the gun and manged to throw it out the car window. D’s conviction for attempted murder was upheld.
D tried to argue that, as the safety catch was still on, he had not done the last act before the crime proper. The court of appeal said that buying the gun, shortening it , loading it and disguising himself with the visor were all preparatory acts. But once D got into V’s car and pointed the gun at V then there was sufficient evidence to leave to the jury the question of whether there was an attempt.
men’s rea of attempt
R v easom 1971
R v Easom 1971
D picked up a women’s handbag in the cinema, rummaged through it then put it back on the floor without removing anything from it. His conviction for theft of the bag and the specific content including a purse and pen , as there was no evidence that D intended to steal the items.
In this case there was no evidence that D intended to permanently to deprive the owner of the bag or items in it ( Part of the required mens rea) for theft. As a result, he could not be guilty of attempted theft.
This should be the same MR of the full offence.
legal principle there could be no attempted theft as there was no mr of theft
How do you decide when you are more than merely preparing?
You can work backwards from the offence and see when the act occurred and is more than just preparing.
Campbell 1990
1 If he entered the post office and showed the gun and note to the person behind the counter and obtained money - robbery
2 if he has shown the note and gun but not obtained the money, or changed his mind- no theft, but attempt because the acts are more than preparatory.
3 if he went into the post office with his note and gun hidden it becomes more problematic - could be attempted burglary intention to steal with entering the building but not robbery as it is merely preparatory
4 if he does not enter the building there is no offence of burglary or robbery as carrying the note is merely preparatory for robbery and he has not entered the building so no burglary
R v Husseyn 1977
D and another man were seen loitering near the back of a van. When the police approached , they ran off. D was convicted of attempting to steal some sub-aqua equipment that was in the van. The court of appeal quashed is conviction.
These decisions have been criticised as in both cases they would have ended in theft. This leads to an unjust result as people who were clearly going to commit a crime have not been held liable. This issue was resolved in Attorney general reference no1 and 2 of 1979 where it was decided that if D had conditional intent ( they intended to stealing if there was anything worth stealing, D could be charged with an attempt to steal.
what is the Mr of attempted murder?
R v whybrow 1951
The defendant wired up his wife’s bath and caused her an electric shock. He was convicted of attempted murder. When he appealed, the court although up holding his conviction, criticised the trial judge’s summing up and stressed that only intention to kill was sufficient for the mens rea of attempted murder.
MR of attempted murder = The D had intention to kill
This is a higher level of intention than the actual offence the intention to kill or cause GBH
The justification for this is on the grounds of public policy and that a defendant should not be permitted to escape a conviction for murder if the evidence shows that death occured as a direct result of their assault intended to result in GBH.
if no death occurs and the defendant intended GBH then a s18 charge would still achieve justice.
R v Millard and Vernon 1987
The defendants repeatedly pushed against a wooden fence on a stand at a football ground. The prosecution alleged they were trying to break it and they were convicted of attempted criminal damage. The court of appeal quashed their convictions.
Recklessness is not enough of a MR to be guilty of an attempted crime , even when the MR of the completed offences includes recklessness. However there appears to be an exception in Attorney generals reference no3 of 1992 1994
Attorney - General’s reference No3 of 1992 1994
D threw a petrol bomb towards a car containing four men. The bomb missed the car and smashed harmlessly against the wall. D was charged with attempting to commit arson with intent to endanger life. The trial judge ruled that it had to be proved that D intended to damage property and to endanger life. D was Acquitted.
The court of appeal held that the trial judge was wrong. It was necessary to prove that D intended to damage property but it was only necessary to prove that he was reckless as to whether life could be endangered.
This case was criticised in R v Pace and rogers 2014 by davies Lj it is a matter of ordinary language the intent to commit an offence this means
