Attempted Offences Flashcards
What is meant by an attempt
When a person tries to,commit an offence but fails to complete it
R v white
D put a cyanide in his mother’s 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) a person does an act which is more then merely preparatory to the commission of the offence, he is guilty of attempting to commit the offence
Examples of more than merely preparatory
Gateway routes
Stealing a getaway routesDeciding to rob a bank
Buying a shotgun
Making it sawn-off shotgun
Finding a bank to rob
Checking out the getaway routes
Stealing getaway car
Standing outside the bank
Standing outside the bank
Standing inside the bank
Attonery-generals reference (no1 of 1992)(1993)
D dragged a girl up some steps into a shed. He lowered his trousers and interfered with her private oars. His lends remained laccid. He argues that he could not therefore attempt to commit rage. His conviction for rape was upheld.
Looking at the whole of Ds act, this seems a sensible decision. However if he had stopped immediately after he had dragged the girl to the shed. Before he lowered his trousers then ir is unlikely he would have been convicted. His act of dragging her was probable merely preparatory
Legal principle - the D need to not have performed the last act before the crime, nor need he/she reach the point of no return
R v gulletfer
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 fur attempting to steal was quashed because his action was merely preparatory to committing the offence
Legal principle - the d must have gone past the merely preparatory act to be committing the actual crime
Court of appeal suggested two questions
- had the accused moved grin planning or preparation to execution or implementation
- had .tge accused done lab act showing tgst he actually trying to commit tge full offence. Or had ge got only as far as getting ready, or putting himself in a position or equipping himself, to do so.
Following these rules would mean tgat geddes would not be guilty if attempted crimes as ge had nor moved from preparation to starting the crime. He pinky gut as far asgetting ready.
R v Campbell 1990
D was had an imitation gun, sunglasses and a threatening note in his pocket, he was in the street outside a post office. His conviction fur 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? It is sensible to wait until he enter the post office? If the gun had been real then customers and staff would have been put at risk.
R v Tosti 1997
d intended to burgle premises. he took metal cutting equipment with hid it and a hedge near the premises. he then examined the padlock on the door . he did not damage padlock. he was found guilty of attempted burglary.
Both r v Tosti and R v Boyle and Bopyle is different to tge case of R v campbell as a burglary commited in the moment the D enters the property as a trespasper with intent to steal. Robberey is not committed until D actually steals, In the couse of when he uses force - walking into the building still needs anotehr step
legal principle - walking in a building still requires another step therefore guilty of burglary vs r v Campbell who had not taken another step
R v Jones
Ds partner told him she wants there relationship to end and she was seeing another men. D brought a shotgun and shortened the barrel. D then found V, w who was in his own car. D was weeing a crash helmet with the visor down got into V car and pointed the gun at V.
V grabbed the gun and manages t o throw it out the car window. D conviction for attempted murder was upheld.
D tried to argue that, as the safety catch was still up he had not done the last act before the crime proper. COA said buying the gun shortening it, loading it and disguising himself with the visor were all preparatory acts.. But once D got into Vs car and pointed the gun at V, then there was sufficient evidence to leave the jury the question of whether there was an attempt.
how do you decide more then merely preparing
work back from the offence and see when the act occurred and is it more than just preparing.
campell 1990
1. if he entered the post office and showed the gun and note to the person behind the counter and obtained money = robbery
- if he has shown the note and gun but not obtained the money, or changed mind - no theft, but attempt becuase the act was more then merely preparatory
- if he went into the post office with his note and gun hidden it becomes more problematic - could be attempted burglary (intention to steal when entering the building ) but not robbery as it is merely preparatory
- if he does not enter the building there is no offence of burglary as carrying the note is merely preparatory for robbery, he has not entered the building so no burglary
mens rea of attempt key case
R v Easom
R v Easom
mr of attempt
- this should be the same mr of the full offence
d picked up a womens handbag in the cinema, rummaged through it then put it back on te floor without removing anything from it. his conviction for theft of the bag and the specific content (including a purse and a pen) there was no evidence to show that D intended to steal the items.
no evidnce as D had not intnded to permnatly deprive the owner of its bag or items in it which is part of teh required mens rea for tehft, therefore he could not be guilty for attempted tehft
- legal principle - there could be no attempted theft as there was no Mr ofd theft
key case for Mr for attempted murder
R v whybrow 1951
R v whybrow 1951
key case for Mr for attempted murder
- d wired up his wife’s bath and caused her electric shock. he was convicted of attempted murder.
when he appealed the court, although upholding his conviction criticised the judges summing up and stressed that only intention to kill was sufficient for the men’s rea of murder
MR of attempted murder - D having the 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 the public policy and that a defendant should not be permitted to escape a conviction for mudar if the evidence shows that death occurred 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
defednats repeatedly pushed V 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 dmaage.the court of appeal quashed their conviction
- recklessness is not enough MR for attempted crimes
Recklessness is not enough of MR to be guilty of a crime, when when the MR of the completted offence includes recklessness. hwoever there appears to be an exception in Attornes generel reference (NO 3 of 1992)(1994)
Attorney generel reference (NO 3 of 1992)(1994)
recklessness is not enough MR for attempted crimes
Recklessness is not enough of MR to be guilty of a crime, when when the MR of the completted offence includes recklessness. hwoever there appears to be an exception in Attornes generel reference (NO 3 of 1992)(1994)
d threw a petrol bomb towards a car containing 4 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 not to endanger life. D was acquitted.
The COA 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 mater of ordinary language the intent to commit an offence - this means the intent to commit all the elements of the offence for those offences that can be reckless, the prosecution must prove intent to commit the offence
impossibility
in some cases a defendant may intend to commit an offence and do everything possible to commit but in fact, teh offence is impossible to commit
e.g. the d goes to the v room to stab them but finds the v had died of a heart attack an hour earlier. they had merely stabbed a dead body
can the d be guilty of murdering a dead body when it i physically impossible to murder someone who is already dead
common law
house of lords (pre 1981) held that whne a crime was l;egally or phsyiclaly impossible to commit the d cannot be guilty of murder
the criminal attempts act 1981 (s1(2) - closed the loophole and made it a criminal offence to attempt a crime even if it wa simpsosible
- a person many be guilyy of attempting to commit an offence - even though the facts are such that the commisssion offence is impossible
this was then considered in anderton v ryan
Attorneys generel reference (NO 3 of 1992)(1994)
Mr sryan bought a video recorder very cheap, she thought it was stolen. later she admitted this to the poice who were investigatimg a burglary at her home. Her conviction was quashed because teh video recoder was not in fact stolen.
legal principle - you can not be guilty of an impossible crime if you only carry out innocent acts
r v shivpuri 1968
D agreed to recieve a suitacse that he though vcontained prohibited druges. suitcase was deliverd to him but it contained snuff and hamrless vegtable matter. d was convicted of attempting to be knowinly concrned with dealing with prohibited drugs
HOL states that both sections were relevant
a person can be guilty of an offence even if the full offence was impsossible. shivpuri beleived the suitcase as fgull o drugs and he intended to deal them, thuis is considered intentions to commit a crime under s1(3). HOL accepted that the decisison in Anderson v Ryan was wrong and tehy use dthe 1996 prctise statemnet to overrile teh deciison
