Attempts Flashcards
Actus reus of attempted arson
more than merely preparatory to damaging/destroying property by fire.
Attempted murder actus and mens reus
The mens rea (Latin for the “guilty mind”) for murder includes an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm where there is virtual certainty of death resulting, whereas attempted murder depends on an intention to kill and an overt act towards committing homicide.
Quick Q:
A man is part of an organisation which campaigns against climate change. To raise awareness of the issue, he plants a bomb outside the offices of an oil company. The man has researched how to build a bomb using the internet. He purchases all the ingredients that he needs and constructs the bomb in his garage. The man then goes to the oil company’s offices and places the bomb in a bin outside the building before pressing the detonator. When nothing happens, the man is shocked and runs away without trying again.
Some days later, he is arrested by the counter-terrorism police and is informed by them that the bomb could never have exploded as it was not correctly set up.
Which of the following best describes whether the man has committed the actus reus of attempted arson?
The man has committed the actus reus of attempted arson as he has done an act more than merely preparatory and it is irrelevant that the bomb could not detonate.
Option D is correct. By pressing the detonator, the man has done an act more than merely preparatory to damaging/destroying property by fire. The fact that the bomb could never go off is irrelevant as impossibility of means is no defence (see section 1(2) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981).
Option A is wrong. The fact that the bomb has not detonated is irrelevant. The actus reus is complete when the man did an act which was more than merely preparatory towards committing the offence.
Option B is wrong. By researching how to build a bomb, actually building it, taking it to the offices and pressing the detonator, the man has done an act more than merely preparatory towards committing criminal damage by fire. He has embarked upon the crime. He has committed the actus reus.
Option C is wrong. The actus reus can be complete even though there are more steps the man could have taken, such as pressing the detonator again.
Option E is not the best answer because the man’s lack of awareness of the impossibility of the crime is relevant only to the mens rea and not the actus reus.
Quick Q:
A woman has recently discovered her husband has been having an affair. Furious, she decides to kill him. The woman purchases a handgun on the internet which she intends to use to shoot her husband. Unknown to the woman, the handgun is a fake. The woman waits for her husband outside of his work, checks the handgun is loaded and tucks it into her back pocket. She hides some distance away intending to run at her husband and shoot him when he appears. When her husband appears, she changes her mind but is apprehended by a security guard who has spotted the handgun.
Is the woman guilty of attempted murder?
No, she has not done something more than merely preparatory as she had not yet embarked on the crime proper.
Option E is correct as the woman has only hidden and not yet run at her husband, pointed the handgun or pulled the trigger. She has not gone beyond preparation and embarked on the crime proper (R v Jones [1990]).
Option A is wrong as whilst the mens rea for attempted murder is an intention to kill, the woman had not done something more than merely preparatory.
Option B is wrong as although, indeed, the impossibility of means is not a defence, the woman had not done something more than merely preparatory.
Option C is wrong as the woman had not done something more than merely preparatory, the actus reus is not satisfied and her change of mind is therefore irrelevant.
Option D is wrong as although indeed, the woman had not done something more than merely preparatory, that is because she is still hidden and not because she has a fake handgun.
A woman and her boyfriend are rock climbing when an argument develops. As they are perched together on a high ledge she gives him a shove and he falls off the ledge and descends 60 metres down before landing on a patch of grass. Miraculously, he survives sustaining only a broken leg and two broken arms. When interviewed she says she did not want to kill him but she did want to seriously hurt him and she foresaw that death was highly probable.
If she is charged with attempted murder which of the following statements best describes her chances of being convicted?
A-She would be found guilty as she has done an act more than merely preparatory and she intended grievous bodily harm.
B-She might be found not guilty as she has done an act more than merely preparatory but she lacked the mens rea for attempted murder which requires an intention to kill.
C-She might be found guilty as she has done an act more than merely preparatory and a jury is likely to find that grievous bodily harm was a virtual certainty and that she foresaw this.
D-She might be found guilty as she has done an act which is more than merely preparatory and a jury is likely to find that death was a virtual certainty and that she foresaw this.
E-She might be found not guilty as although she has committed the actus reus she has not committed the mens rea as only a direct intent will suffice for an attempt.
Option D is the correct answer. For attempts, the actus reus is doing an act more than merely preparatory and the mens rea is intending the commission of the offence. For attempted murder, this means the defendant must intend to kill. Intention to cause grievous bodily harm is not sufficient. (R v Whybrow (1951) 35 Cr App R 14). The intent can be direct or indirect. (R v Pearman (1985) 80 Cr App R 259). Therefore, although the woman has only admitted that she wanted to cause him serious bodily harm given that she pushed him off the edge of a cliff with a 60-metre drop it is likely that the jury would conclude that death was a virtual certainty and that she would have foreseen this.
Options A and C are wrong because an intent to cause grievous bodily harm is not sufficient for attempted murder.
Option B is wrong because while she may not have a direct intent to kill she may well have an indirect intent to kill on the facts. See Option A.
Option E is wrong because intent can be direct or indirect.
Quick Q:
A wife discovers that her husband has transferred all their money into his own account and is planning to move to a foreign country. She is furious and decides that she will cause him serious injuries.
She buys a gun, practises her aim by firing at objects in her garden, loads the gun with real bullets and drives to the local park where she knows that her husband plays football. The wife walks up to her husband, points the gun at him and pulls the trigger but the firing mechanism jams so that nothing happens. Subsequent examination of the gun by police experts concludes that the gun was faulty so that it could never have fired live bullets.
Is the wife guilty of attempted murder?
No, because she intended to cause grievous bodily harm.
The correct option is E. The wife is not guilty of attempted murder because she only intends to cause her husband ‘serious injuries’ and there is no evidence that she intends to kill him, as required for this offence. For attempted murder, an intention to cause grievous bodily harm is not sufficient, even though this would satisfy the mens rea for murder itself.
Option A is wrong because the wife’s actions were more than merely preparatory to the commission of the full offence; indeed, there was nothing further she could have done to complete the shooting.
Option B is wrong because, although the wife had embarked on the crime proper – R v Jones [1990] – by firing the gun at her husband, she did not satisfy the men rea. Thus, she is not guilty of attempted murder.
Option C is wrong because, even if a crime is factually impossible, the wife may still be liable under s.1(2) Criminal Attempts Act 1981.
Option D is wrong because the wife is not guilty of attempted murder for the reasons stated above. However, it is correct that she is judged on the facts as she believed them to be according to s.1(3) CAA 1981 and in this case, the wife believed the gun would fire. Thus, it is irrelevant that she was unaware the commission of the crime was impossible.
Quick Q:
A man receives letter from his local council ordering him to demolish an extension to his property which he built without permission. The letter notifies him that a buildings inspector will visit a week later to check the work has been carried out.
Furious at this, the man decides that he will shoot the inspector when he visits a week later, intending to cause grievous bodily harm or death. He buys a small gun and ammunition and practises shooting using targets in his local field. On the day of the inspector’s visit, he loads the gun and waits behind a tree in his driveway. As the inspector drives towards the property, the man approaches the car takes aim with his gun and pulls the trigger. The gun jams and no bullet is discharged. When the gun is examined by the police, it becomes apparent that there was a faulty firing mechanism so the bullet could never have been fired.
Which of the following statements best describes whether the man satisfies the actus reus for attempted murder?
The man is liable as he has embarked on the crime proper.
Option C is the best answer as the test under R v Gullefer [1987] is that the defendant must have embarked on the crime proper to be guilty of an attempt, and not as described in options A and B. Option D is wrong as it is irrelevant whether the crime is factually impossible; and option E is wrong as it relates to the mens rea.
An activist decides to bomb a university laboratory because he is against the use of live animals in experiments. He researches how to make a bomb using the internet, purchases the ingredients required such as a fuse, fertiliser and nails from his local shop, and then makes the bomb in his kitchen. The activist then puts the bomb into his rucksack, before leaving his house and catching the bus to the laboratory. However, he is seen acting suspiciously by another passenger and arrested before he is able to leave the bus.
At what stage is the activist most likely to have satisfied the actus reus of attempted aggravated arson?
A-When he researches how to make a bomb using the internet.
B-When he buys the ingredients for the bomb from his local shop.
C-When he makes the bomb in his kitchen.
D-When he puts the bomb in his rucksack.
E-When he catches the bus to the laboratory.
Option E is the correct answer. The actus reus of attempt requires an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the crime – R v Gullefer [1987]; or for the defendant to have reached the stage where they embark on the crime proper – R v Jones [1990].
Options A, B and C are clearly preparatory steps to the commission of the full offence. In all of these, the activist is still researching, preparing and making the bomb. Option D is wrong as, although the activist puts the bomb into his rucksack, he is still in his house so it is unlikely this would count as ‘embarking on the crime proper’.
A girl decides to set fire to the sports hall attached to her school one afternoon as she is bored and thought it would be fun to watch the students run out of the building. She purchases some matches and lighter fuel and approaches a litter bin that is full of paper. She pours the lighter fuel onto the paper and strikes a match. However, just as she is about to drop this into the bin, a member of staff sees her and asks what she is doing. The girl panics and drops the match, which has now been extinguished, onto the floor causing no damage. She runs away but is arrested at home by the police.
Which statement best describes whether the girl satisfies the mens rea for attempted arson and/or attempted aggravated arson?
The girl is liable for both offences because she intended to damage property belonging to another by fire and was reckless as to endangering life.
The correct answer is option E. The girl intended to commit arson as she ‘decides to set fire to the sports hall’ but was reckless as to endangering life (she was aware that students were still in the building as she thought it would be fun to watch them run out).
Option B is wrong because the girl does satisfy the mens rea for attempted aggravated arson and option A is wrong as she is criminally liable for both offences.
Options C and D are not the best answers because she intended the arson and was reckless as to the endangering life aspect, rather than intending or being reckless as to both.
Attempted arson: it was held to be sufficient for the prosecution to establish a specific intent to cause damage by fire and that the defendant was reckless as to whether life would thereby be endangered.
