Attempts

Question 1

Attorney-General’s Reference (No 1 of 1992) (1993)

Answer 1

D need not have performed the last act before the crime proper, nor need he have reached the “point of no return”

Question 2

Gullefer (1987)

Answer 2

“more than merely preparatory” means D must have gone beyond purely preparatory acts and be “embarked on the crime proper”

Question 3

Geddes (1996)

Answer 3

should ask
1- Has the accused moved from planning to execution
2- has the accused done an act showing he was trying to commit the full offence

Question 4

Campbell (1990)

Answer 4

difficult to justify

Question 5

Boyle and Boyle (1987)

Answer 5

used embarking on the crime proper test- trying to gain entry was embarking on the crime proper

Question 6

Tosti (1997)

Answer 6

D did not damage the lock but still guilty of attempting

Question 7

Jones (1990)

Answer 7

D had done almost everything he could before committing the full offence

Question 8

Easom (1971)

Answer 8

If prosecution cannot prove that D had that intention then D is not guilty of an attempt

Question 9

Husseyn (1977)

Answer 9

followed Easom

Question 10

Attorney-General’s Reference (Nos 1 and 2 of 1979) (1979)

Answer 10

if D had conditional intent he could be charged with attempting to steal

Question 11

Whybrow (1951)

Answer 11

intention for attempted murder is to intend to kill not cause GBH

Question 12

Millard and Vernon (1987)

Answer 12

recklessness not sufficient mens rea for an attempt

Question 13

Attorney-General’s Reference (No 3 of 1992) (1994)

Answer 13

an exception in that recklessness as to only one part of the offence can be sufficient

Question 14

Shivpuri (1986)

Answer 14

attempting the impossible you can still be liable of attempting to commit the offence