Attempts Flashcards
Explain Section 72 Crimes Act 1961
Attempts
Attempts Section 72(1)
Every one who:
- HAVING AN INTENT TO COMMIT an offence
- DOES or OMITS an act for the purpose of accomplishing his object
- Is guilty of an attempt to commit the offence intended, WHETHER in the circumstances it was POSSIBLE TO COMMIT OR NOT.
(2) The question whether an act done or omitted with intent to commit an offence is or is not only preparation for the commission of that offence, and too remote to constitute an attempt to commit it, is A QUESTION OF LAW.
(3) An act done or omitted with intent to commit an offence may constitute an attempt if it is IMMEDIATELY or PROXIMATELY CONNECTED with the intended offence, whether or not there was any act unequivocally showing the intent to commit that offence.
Explain the following case law:
- R v Ring
- R v Harpur
R v RING
In this case the offender’s INTENT was to STEAL PROPERTY by putting his hand into the POCKET of the victim. Unbeknown to the offender the pocket was EMPTY. Despite this he was able to be convicted of attempted theft, because the intent to steal whatever property might have been discovered inside the pocket WAS PRESENT IN HIS MIND AND DEMONSTRATED BY HIS ACTIONS. The remaining elements were also satisfied.
***********
However, independent acts, that if looked at in isolation might simply be construed as preparatory, can take on a different context when looked at collectively and therefore amount to a criminal attempt.
R v HARPUR
[The Court may]”have regard to the conduct viewed CUMULATIVELY up to the point when the conduct in question stops … the defendant’s conduct [may] be considered in its ENTIRETY. Considering how much remains to be done … is always relevant, though not determinative.”
Explain the following case law:
- Police v Jay
- R v Donnelly
POLICE v JAY
A man bought hedge clippings believing they were cannabis.
It was held that the offenders could be convicted of an attempt, because they acted with criminal intent.
**********
R v DONNELLY
Where stolen PROPERTY HAS BEEN RETURNED TO THE OWNER or legal title to any such property has been acquired by any person, it is NOT AN OFFENCE to subsequently receive it, even though the receiver may know that the property had previously been stolen or dishonestly obtained.
