Attempts Flashcards
How and where is attempt defined?
Section 1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 defines attempt as ‘if, with intent to commit an offence to which this section applies, 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’.
What is the actus reus of an attempt?
Doing an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence.
What is the mens rea of an attempt?
Intending to commit the offence.
Which tests did courts use to decide whether the defendant had done enough to constitute an attempt, before statute?
The last act test - had D done the last act he could do before committing the crime?
The proximity test - were the defendant’s acts so immediately connected to the actus reus of the offence as to justify liability for attempt?
What was decided in Attorney-General’s Reference (No 1 of 1992)
D need not have performed the last act before the crime proper, nor need he have reached the point of no return.
What was held in Gullefer?
The defendant must have gone beyond purely preparatory acts and embarked on the crime proper.
What were the questions suggested in Geddes?
- Has the accused moved from planning or preparation to execution or implementation?
- Has the accused done an act showing that he was actually trying to commit the full offence, or had he only gone so far as getting ready, or putting himself in a position or equipping himself to do so?
What is the mens rea of an attempt?
The intention required for the full offence.
Is recklessness sufficient for an attempt?
No (Millard and Vernon).
Can a person be guilty of attempting the impossible?
Yes under section 1 (2) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981.
What are three problems with the law on attempts?
- The dividing line between what is more and less than merely preparatory is not very clear.
- Some decisions are not effective at protecting the public.
- It is not fair to convict of attempting the impossible.
