Attempts

Question 1

What does S.1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 define attempts as being in whole?

Answer 1

‘If, with intent to commit an offence to which this sections 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 2

What is the significance of the case R v White?

Answer 2

Mr. White put poison in his mother’s cup intending to kill her, but she died of a heart attack, making him guilty of attempted murder despite not being the factual cause of her death.

Question 3

What does ‘attempting the impossible’ refer to?

Answer 3

Situations where a person intends to commit an offence but the offence is impossible to commit.

Question 4

What did the House of Lords hold regarding impossibility of committing a crime before 1981?

Answer 4

A person could not be guilty of attempting to commit a crime if it was legally or physically impossible.

Question 5

What is the key provision of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981?

Answer 5

A person may be guilty of attempting to commit an offence even if the commission of the offence is impossible.

Question 6

According to s1(2) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981, what is the criteria for guilt in attempt cases?

Answer 6

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 7

What does s1(3) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 state?

Answer 7

If a person’s intention would not normally be regarded as an intent to commit an offence, but would be so regarded if the facts were as he believed, he shall be regarded as having had intent.

Question 8

What happened in the case R v Shivpuri?

Answer 8

Shivpuri acted as a drug courier with a suitcase he believed contained drugs, but it contained snuff and vegetable matter. He was charged with attempting to deal with controlled drugs.

Question 9

What was the House of Lords’ ruling in R v Shivpuri regarding the nature of the substance?

Answer 9

It was immaterial that he did not know the exact nature of the substance; he believed he was dealing with controlled drugs.

Question 10

In R v Shivpuri, what two conditions were established for his guilt?

Answer 10

1. An act more than merely preparatory to the commission of an offence.
2. The accused intended to commit an offence.

Question 11

What constitutes attempted burglary according to Boyle and Boyle (1987)?

Answer 11

Defendants engaged in acts (breaking lock and hinge) indicating intention to commit burglary

The actions were deemed to have embarked on the crime proper, satisfying the MMP requirement.

Question 12

In Tosti and White (1997), what actions did the defendants take that led to their conviction of attempted burglary?

Answer 12

They concealed metal cutting equipment, examined the padlock, and were on a reconnaissance mission

The hidden tools were preparatory, but their trespassing meant they were in the commission of the crime.

Question 13

What is the mens rea requirement for attempts as stated in the document?

Answer 13

The defendant must have the intention required for the full offence

If the prosecution cannot prove intention, the defendant cannot be guilty of an attempt.

Question 14

True or False: In Easom (1971), the defendant was convicted of attempted theft.

Answer 14

False

The conviction was quashed due to lack of evidence of intent to permanently deprive the owner.

Question 15

What did the Court of Appeal state about conditional intent in AG Ref (Nos 1 and 2 of 1979)?

Answer 15

Defendant should be charged with an attempt to steal ‘some or all of the contents’

This means that in situations similar to Easom, conditional intent would lead to a guilty charge for attempted theft.

Question 16

Fill in the blank: Attempted murder requires the intention to _______.

Answer 16

Kill

GBH stands for grievous bodily harm, which isn’t sufficient for an attempted murder charge.

Question 17

What was the initial action taken by the police in R v Campbell (1990)?

Answer 17

The police received a tip-off about a potential robbery at a post office and staked out the location.

Question 18

Which two cases show that their actions were merely preparatory?

Answer 18

Gullefer 1987
Campbell 1990

Question 19

Which two cases show that the defendants actions were more than merely preparatory?

Answer 19

AG’s Ref (No1 of 1992) (1993)
Boyle and Boyle 1987

Question 20

What did the defendant in the case of R v Campbell admit during the police interview?

Answer 20

He originally intended to rob the post office but changed his mind.

Question 21

What was the outcome of the appellant’s appeal in R v Campbell (1990)?

Answer 21

The conviction was quashed.

Question 22

What is the Geddes two-part test used for?

Answer 22

To determine whether the actions of the defendant were merely preparatory or constituted an attempt.

Question 23

According to the Geddes two-part test, what was the conclusion regarding Campbell’s actions?

Answer 23

1. The defendant merely equipped himself to commit the robbery. 2. The defendant merely put himself in the position to commit the robbery.

Question 24

In AG’s Ref (No 1 of 1992) (1993), what action did the defendant take that indicated an attempt?

Answer 24

The defendant dragged a girl to a shed and lowered his trousers.

Question 25

What was clarified by the Court of Appeal regarding attempted rape in AG’s Ref (No 1 of 1992) (1993)?

Answer 25

The defendant does not need to have performed the last act before the crime nor reached the ‘point of no return’.

Question 26

What must the act be in order to constitute an attempt?

Answer 26

The act must be more than preparatory.

Question 27

Apply the Geddes two-part test to AG’s Ref (No 1 of 1992) (1993) to explain why the defendant was guilty of an attempt.

Answer 27

1. The defendant progressed from planning the rape to the execution of pulling his trousers down. 2. The defendant performed an act showing intent to commit the full offense.

Question 28

True or False: The appellant in R v Campbell (1990) was convicted of attempted theft.

Answer 28

False.

Question 29

What are the two questions to determine if a defendant has moved from the MP stage to MMP according to Geddes (1996)?

Answer 29

1. Has he acted beyond planning or preparation?
2. Has he done an act showing he is trying to commit the full offence?

Question 30

What was the outcome of the Geddes (1996) case regarding the defendant’s actions?

Answer 30

The defendant was convicted of attempted false imprisonment, but his conviction was quashed.

Question 31

What items were found in the defendant’s rucksack in the Geddes (1996) case?

Answer 31

• Knife
• Rope
• Masking tape

Question 32

Was there admissible evidence of the defendant’s motive in the Geddes (1996) case?

Answer 32

No, there was no admissible evidence of his motive.

Question 33

What is the significance of the Geddes two-part test?

Answer 33

It helps determine whether a defendant has moved from mere preparation to actual execution of an offence.

Question 34

In the Gullefer (1987) case, what action did the defendant take?

Answer 34

He placed a bet and then tried to stop the race to recover his money.

Question 35

What was the verdict for the defendant in Gullefer (1987) regarding attempted theft?

Answer 35

Not guilty of attempted theft.

Question 36

What action did the defendant in Gullefer (1987) take that was deemed merely preparatory?

Answer 36

Jumping onto the race track to stop the race.

Question 37

What are two cases that illustrate actions that were merely preparatory?

Answer 37

• Gullefer (1987)
• Campbell (1990)

Question 38

True or False: The Geddes (1996) case involved a defendant who successfully executed a plan to commit an offence.

Answer 38

False

Question 39

Fill in the blank: The defendant in Geddes (1996) was found in possession of items that suggested he was _______.

Answer 39

[preparing to commit an offence]

Question 40

What is an attempt in the context of criminal law?

Answer 40

An attempt is where a person tries to commit an offence but fails to complete it

This definition emphasizes the action taken towards committing a crime, even if it is not successful.

Question 41

According to the Criminal Attempts Act 1981, how is an attempt defined in brief?

Answer 41

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

This legal definition outlines the necessity of intent and action beyond mere preparation.

Question 42

What does ‘Actus Reus’ refer to in the context of attempts?

Answer 42

The actus reus of attempts refers to doing an act that is more than merely preparatory

Actus reus is a fundamental concept in criminal law, indicating the physical act involved in a crime.

Question 43

What does MMP stand for?

Answer 43

More than merely preparatory

This term is used to determine the threshold of action required to qualify as an attempt.

Question 44

What does MP stand for in the context of attempts?

Answer 44

Merely preparatory

This term refers to actions that do not meet the threshold of an attempt.

Question 45

What can be inferred if the defendant has ‘embarked on the commission of the offence’?

Answer 45

There can be sufficient evidence of an act towards the commission of the intended offence

This indicates that the defendant has moved beyond mere preparation.

Question 46

True or False: An act that is merely preparatory can be considered an attempt.

Answer 46

False

Only actions that are more than merely preparatory can qualify as attempts.

Question 47

Fill in the blank: An attempt is defined in section 1 of the _______.

Answer 47

Criminal Attempts Act 1981

This section provides the legal framework for understanding attempts in criminal law.