attempts

Question 1

what is an attempted offence?

Answer 1

where the defendant tried to do an offence but failed

as seen in R v White where he tried and failed to kill his mother

Question 2

what category does attempts fall under?

Answer 2

inchoate offences

Question 3

in what act are attempts found?

Answer 3

Criminal Attempts Act (1981) Section 1(1)

Question 4

section 1(1) criminal attempts act (1981)

Answer 4

“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”.

Question 5

actus reus of attempts

Answer 5

doing an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence

Question 6

mens rea of attempts

Answer 6

intent to commit the full offence

Question 7

gullefer

Answer 7

D was found to be merely preparatory as he had not tried to get his money back

Question 8

campbell

Answer 8

found to be merely preparatory as D did not enter the post office

Question 9

geddes

Answer 9

found to be merely preparatory as D had not approached a child

Question 10

ag’s reference (attempts)

Answer 10

more than merely preparatory when he pulled a girl into a hedge to rape her.
public policy decision – HAD to be an attempt

Question 11

jones (attempts)

Answer 11

D was found to have been more than merely preparatory when he entered the car and pointed the shotgun at the victim (last act)

Question 12

tosti and white

Answer 12

more than merely preparatory when they were caught outside a door with cutting equipment in the hedge down the road

Question 13

whybrow

Answer 13

(soap-dish electricity) – mens rea for attempted murder needs intention to kill only

did NOT include intention to do serious harm/gbh

Question 14

millard and vernon

Answer 14

(shook fence) – recklessness not sufficient for an attempt

Question 15

what is recklessness?

Answer 15

knowing there is a risk and deciding to take it

Question 16

ag’s reference (conditional intent)

Answer 16

introduced conditional intent (the defendant intended stealing if there was anything worth stealing)

This case overruled the previous case of asom

Question 17

attempting the impossible

Answer 17

HoL in Shivpuri overruled the previous case of Anderton v Ryan and held that D can be found guilty of attempting the impossible. This was later confirmed in the case of Jones.

Question 18

anderton v ryan

Answer 18

(video-recorder, not stolen) – court = cannot attempt the impossible

Question 19

shivpuri

Answer 19

(cocaine briefcase, cauliflower) – court = can attempt the impossible

Question 20

jones (attempting the impossible)

Answer 20

(young girl, policewoman) – court = can attempt the impossible

confirmed shivpuri

Question 21

conditional intent

Answer 21

AG’s Reference overruled the previous case of Easom and held that D could be guilty of conditional intent

conditional intent - the defendant intended stealing if there was anything worth stealing