Attempts Flashcards
Attempts
Where someone attempts to commit a crime but at some point fails.
Defined under s1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 as ‘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, they are guilty of attempting to commit that offence.
It is a question of fact as to whether the D has moved from the merely preparatory stage and gone sufficiently far enough towards committing the full offence, for the act to be considered an attempt.
It is specifically asked:
- Had the D actually tried to commit the offence? (More than merely preparatory)
- Or, had they simply got ready, got into position or equipped themselves to commit the offence? (Merely preparatory)
AR of attempts
An attempt must be a positive act, not an omission, that is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence (based on the facts of the case)
Therefore an offence that is merely preparatory is not an attempt, but could be an attempt for another offence eg going equipped
MR of attempts
The prosecution must prove intent to commit that particular full offence. Recklessness will not suffice.
In certain crimes, an intent may suffice for the full crime, and also suffice for an attempt.
Attempting the impossible
The Criminal Attempts Act 1981 has drawn a distinction between an offence which is factually impossible and legally impossible
S1(2) - factual impossibility
- if on the facts, the commission of the crime was impossible, although the D believed it to be possible, then they can still be convicted of attempted crime
S1(3) - legal impossibility
- if the D believes they are committing an offence, but they are actually not committing an offence, then they cannot be convicted of attempting the offence they think they are committing
R v Gullefer
AR - MP
The D had to go and ask for his money back first, no attempted theft.
R v Campbell
AR - MP
D did not end up entering the post office to threaten staff and attempt robbery.
R v Geddes
AR - MP
D had not tried to actually commit the crime itself
R v Nash
AR - MP
Although the first 2 letters D sent requested an act of gross indecency, the 3rd one did not, so it couldn’t be an attempt as such
MS, Application by the Prosecution for Leave of Appeal
AR - MP; Mens rea
The CoA stated that ‘geographical proximity’ was not a sole deciding factor and each case must be looked at based on its own facts
CoA stated that D could have still ‘embarked upon’ the crime from some considerable distance
R v Boyle and Boyle
AR - MTMP
All they had to do was enter the building to complete committing the full crime
R v Jones
AR - MTMP
All he had to do was pull the trigger to commit the full crime
A-G Ref (No1 of 1992)
AR - MTMP
All he had to do was penetrate V to commit the full crime
R v Whybrow
Mens rea
The mens rea is intent to kill for attempted murder
R v Millard
Mens rea
No attempt as there was no intent, as recklessness will not suffice
A-G Ref (No3 of 1992)
Mens rea
Need intent to damage property but could be reckless as to endanger life
R v Khan
Mens rea
A person may be guilty of an attempt even if the full offence requires a certain state of mind (eg consent in rape), provided they had rage necessary intent to commit the act and were reckless to the circumstances
R v Pace and Rogers
Mens rea
D must have intent to commit all the elements of the offence, not just some of them. Suspicion is not sufficient.
Anderson v Ryan
Attempting the impossible
D could not be convicted for something she believed but turned out to be wrong (overruled by Shivpuri)
R v Shivpuri
Attempting the impossible
Overruled Anderson v Ryan, D was convicted of attempting the impossible
R v Jones
Attempting the impossible
Even though the V was not a real 12yo girl, D was still convicted of attempting the impossible
Attempts plan
Where someone attempts to commit a crime but at some point fails.
Defined under s1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 as ‘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, they are guilty of attempting to commit that offence’
It is a question of fact as to whether the D has moved from the merely preparatory stage and gone sufficiently far enough towards committing the full offence, for the act to be considered an attempt.
It is specifically asked:
- Had the D actually tried to commit the offence? (More than merely preparatory)
- Or, had they simply got ready, got into position or equipped themselves to commit the offence? (Merely preparatory)
AR:
An attempt must be a positive act, not an omission, that is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence - R v Boyle and Boyle, R v Jones, A-G Ref (No1 of 1992)
Therefore an offence that is merely preparatory is not an attempt - R v Gullefer, R v Campbell, R v Geddes, R v Nash, MS Application by the Prosecution for Leave of Appeal
Apply….
MR:
The prosecution must prove D’s intent to commit that particular full offence - R v Whybrow, A-G Ref (No3 of 1992)
Recklessness will not suffice - R v Millard
In certain crimes, an intent may suffice for the full crime, but also suffice for an attempt - R v Khan
Apply….
Attempting the impossible:
The 1981 Act has drawn a distinction between an offence which is factually impossible and legally impossible
S1(2) - factual impossibility
- if on the fact of the case, the commission of the crime is impossible, but D believed it to be possible, they can still be convicted of attempted crime - Anderson v Ryan, R v Shivpuri, R v Jones
S1(3) - legal impossibility
- if D believes they are committing an offence, but they are actually not committing an offence, they cannot be convicted of attempting the offence they think they’re committing - MS Application…
Apply….
Conclusion - if the act is more than merely preparatory, D could be convicted to attempted crime where they satisfy intent under attempting the impossible.
