Attempts

Question 1

what section is criminal attempts act defined in and what is the definition?

what does an attempted sentence look like?

Answer 1

S.1(1) defines an attempt as if with intent to commit an offence to which the section applies a person do an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence he is guilty of attempting the offence.

If they are charged with an attempted crime, the sentence is the same as the full offence.

Question 2

What is the AR of attempts?

What are the cases for the actus reus?

Answer 2

It must be a positive act that is more than merely preparatory to carry out the crime.

Acts which are undertaken to prepare for the crime it’s not a attempt.

In order to have the actus reus of an attempt, the defendant must move from the planning or preparation stage into the execution stage and do an act showing he was trying to commit the full offence rather than planning for the act.

Gullefer held - his conviction for attempting to steal his crashed as he had not yet attempted to claim his money back. It was held that he had an embarked on the crime proper.

Jones held - defendant was charged with attempted murder as his acts were beyond merely preparatory. The buying and shortening of the barrel were only preparatory, but when he entered the car and pointed the gun, he had gone beyond it.

Geddes held - he was found not guilty as his actions were only preparatory, as Geddes had not moved from the getting ready staged.

Question 3

What is the definition of the MR for attempts?

Does the defendant have to intent to commit the full offence?
Can the defendant be reckless in committing the offence?
What happens if the courts can’t prove that the defendant had the intention for the full offence and what are the cases?
What is the cases for murder and attempted murder?

Answer 3

This is the intention to commit the final offence.

The defendant will not be liable if you was reckless in committing the offence. Millard and Vernon

If it cannot be proven that the defendant intended the full offence, they cannot be found guilty of an attempted crime (Easom) held - There was no evidence he had the intention to permanently deprive so there was no attempted theft.

However this was overturned in AG Ref No1 & 2 1979 which found that conditional intent can now be used in attempted theft.

Whybrow held - the Court of Appeal held that, even though it is enough to have the intent to commit GBH for a charge of murder attempted murder the defendant must have the intent to kill.

Question 4

What are the defences for attempted crime and it’s cases?

Answer 4

Withdrawal
——————
- this is when the defendant may withdraw from an attempt as long as he has not gone beyond the preparatory stages, it is a question for the jury

Taylor held that the withdrawal was irrelevant as the defendant had already passed the merely preparatory stages of the time.

Attempting the impossible
————————————-
s.1(2) of the criminal attempts act 1981, states that impossibility is no defence to the crime of attempt, and even where the event is impossible to carry out the accused will be liable for an attempt if he has gone beyond the point of preparation.

There are three types of impossibility:

1. Physical impossibility, for example, the defendant attempting to murder someone that is already dead.
2. Legal impossibility. For example, the defendant tries to handle stolen goods when in fact they are not stolen. This means the defendant thinking about doing something illegal. When in reality it’s not illegal to do.
3. In adequate methods for example, picking a safe with a plastic spoons.

Shivpuri held - the defendant had the mens rea to import drugs.

Taaffe held - the defendant didn’t have the mens rea for importing drugs as the CA quashed the conviction as the defendant needs the mens rea of the offence he has been convicted off.