Attempts

Question 1

Where is attempts contained

Answer 1

Section 1 of the criminal attempts act 1981

Question 2

How is attempts defined

Answer 2

If with intent to commit an offence a person, does an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of an offence

Question 3

What is the actus reus of attempts

Answer 3

Positive act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence - R v Jones

Question 4

Merely preparatory offences

Answer 4

Conversely an act which is merely preparatory is not an attempt but may be another offence like going equipped - R v Campbell

Question 5

Mens rea of attempts

Answer 5

Is intent to commit that specific offence - recklessness wont suffice - R v Whybrow - D. intended to kill

Question 6

Attempting the impossible

Answer 6

Under criminal attempts act 1981 attempting the impossible says their is 2 types of impossibility being factual and legal

Question 7

Factual impossibility

Answer 7

S.1(2) says: A person may be guilty of attempting to commit an offence even though the facts are such that the commission of the offence is impossible

Question 8

Legal impossibility

Answer 8

S.1(3) states in any case where …
(A) A persons intention would not be regarded as having amounted to an intent to commit an offence but
(B) If the facts of the case had been as he believed them to be, his intention would be regarded as having had an intent to commit the offence

Question 9

R v Jones

Answer 9

An act is considered “more than merely preparatory” to the commission of an offence if it goes beyond preparation, even if it is not the last possible act the defendant could have taken

Question 10

R v Campbell

Answer 10

Couldn’t be proved that defendant had moved beyond preparation to actual attempt so defendant’s actions were not more than “merely preparatory” to committing the offense.

Question 11

R v Whybrow

Answer 11

Defendant must have had the specific intent to kill. The case clarified the necessity of intent for an attempt to be sufficient to convict.

Question 12

R v Pace and Rogers

Answer 12

The court ruled that the defendant could not be guilty of attempting fraud because, in the absence of the underlying crime (theft), an attempt cannot be established.

Question 13

R v Shivpuri

Answer 13

The court ruled that a defendant can be guilty of attempting to commit an offense even if they do not succeed, as long as they had the intent to commit the offense and took steps towards its commission