Attempts Flashcards
What is attempt?
A person tries to commit an offence but for some reason fails to complete it . Where the offence has not been committed Ds activities already undertaken can in themselves amount to an offence as they represent the preparatory actions
What section gives the definition for attempted crimes?
S.1(1) Criminal Attempts Act 1981
Actus Reus- “doing an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of an offence”
Mens Rea- “with intention to commit that offence”
What happened in the case of White?
D put cyanide in his mother’s drink, intending to kill her. Although she consumed some of the drink, it was not enough to kill her. She died of a heart attack. D was convicted of attempted murder
Can assault or battery be attempted?
CPS guideline states no due to them being summary offences
Why can manslaughter not be attempted?
Voluntary Manslaughter is the result of raising a defence to murder so where D has not succeeded in the killing- raising loss of control or diminished responsibility
Unlawful and Dangerous Act manslaughter cannot be attempted as the full crime requires D to complete the base crime that kills
For gross negligent manslaughter, D cannot “attempt” to be negligent
State what is meant by “more than merely preparatory”
-the phrase is used to distinguish acts which are too early in the preparatory stage and those which take place at a sufficiently late stage to show that the D has embarked upon attempting the “crime proper”. Essentially, D’s actions must be sufficiently proximate to the final act necessary to commit the intended offence.
What was confirmed in the AGs Ref (No.1 1992)?
Cases will be viewed on its merit as facts will vary in each. It is therefore difficult to draw any general principle. But it was confirmed that D need not have performed the last act before competely an attempt nor it be a “point of no return”.
D had dragged a girl up to a shed and lowered his trousers and began to touch V. CA decided taht dragging the girl to the shed was probably “mrely prepatory” however lowering the trouses was more tha merely prepatory. D guilty of attempted rape.
What happened in the case of tosti and White?
D drove to a farm and hid some metal cutting equipment in the hedge and examined the padlock on a barn door. They did not damaged the padlock but CA deemed these actions were “ESSENTIALLY THE FRIST STEPS IN THE COMMISSION OF THE FULL OFFENCE” = guilty of attempted burgulary
What happened in the case of Campbell?
D stood on street outside a postoffice he had an imitation shotgun and threatning note in his pocket. He stated he changed his mind and was going back to his motorbike when arrested. Surprisingly, his conviction for attempted robbery was quashed.
What happened in the case of Geddes?
D found in the toliet block of a school. He was there wothout lawful reason had a large kitchen knife, rope and masking tape. D had not contact wth any students. Ds convicted for attempted false imprisonment was quashed on appeal. The CA asked two questions:
-Had the D moved from preparation to execution?
-Had D done an act showing that he was actually trying to commit a full offence or had he only got as far as fetting ready or equipping himslef to do so?
=Although intent clear, he had done no more than preperation = not guilty
What is the mens rea?
“If, with intent to commit an offence”
=D msut have the intent to commit the consequence of the full offence
this means the MR for attempt and the MR for the full offence can differ silghtly
What is the mens rea for attempted murder?
=Full offence is either express malice (intent to kill) or implied malice (intent to cause really serious harm)
BUT attempted murder only express malice (intent to kill) only as the D must have intended the consequence (death) but not succeeded therefore the MR for attempted is higher than succeeding with murder
What happened in the casew of Whybrow?
D wired a soap dish to the main electricty supply and his wife recieved an electric shock whilst in the bath. Trial judge stated that for attempted murder can be shown through either intent to kill or intent to cause really serious harm. On appeal CA confirmed that had been a misdirection and that the MR for murder was only intent to kill. However D’s conviction remained as it was felt D had intended to kill his wife
What issue was there for attempted theft previously ?
=legal loophole “a lacuna” as previously the charge would need to specifiy the items which the D had attempted to steal or had stolen
Easom
D rummaged thorugh a bag in the cinema but did not remove any items. He was convicted of attempted theft but was quashed. There was no evidence to show that D intended to steal any particular items and permanetly deprive the owner.
AGs Ref (No 1 and 2 of 1979) Resolved this issue
Ca held that conditional intent was enough to impsoe laibility for an attempted offence if the cahrge does not refer to the specific items
What is conditional intent?
Where D intends to steal “on the condition” they find something wirth stealing, they can be charged with attempting to steal becuase they have the mens rea to steal “something”
Is recklessness suffiecient for the MR of an attempt and provide a case?
For a full offence basic intent crime are either direct or recklessness
HOWEVER for attempt = only direct
Milliard and Vernon
D were football supporters who repeatedly pushed against the fence at a football ground. The prosecution alleged that they tried to break the fence and they were convicted of attempted criminal damage. However convictions quashed as prosecution had not proven the intent to destroy or damage the fence they had only shown they were reckless as to the damage occurring,
What is the exception to the concept that attempts can only be direct intent?
IF a crime is made up of multiple parts, intention is still needed for the main consequence but other parts relating can be satidifed with D being reckless
AGs Ref (No 3 of 1992)
D threw a petrol bomb towards a car containing 4 men. The bomb missed the car and smashed against the wall. D was charged with attempted aggravated criminal damage. CA confirmed that providing D intended the criminal damage (the consequence) they could be reckless to the endangering of life (the aggravated circumstances part of the offence)
What was the old common law view on attempting the impossible?
=provided a denfece, if the full crime cannot be committed, it cannot be attmpted either
What does S.2 Criminal Attempts Act 1981 state now regarding attempting to do the impossible?
“A person may be guilty of attempting to committ an offence….. even though the facts are such that the commission of the offence is impossible”
-therefore of on the facts which D believed them to bem they would have be guilty of the offence
What happened in the case of Ryan?
D had bought a video recorder very cheaply which made her believe it was stolen goods. Following a burglary at her property D told a police officer about her video recorder and she was charged with attempting to dishonestly handle stolen goods. D was convicted as she knew or believed she had handled stolen goods. HL quashed this, despite the wording of the CAA 1981 and stated that her acts were in fact inncoent and that she should be convicted on what she had thought she had done.
What case overruled the case of Ryan?
Shivpuri (HL overrruled by use of PS 1966) and set a new precedent
D believed he was in possession of controlled drugs when in fact it was vegtable matter. His conviction was upheld as if the facts had been as he supposed them to be, he would have been dealing controlled drugs, committing the full offence.
