Attempts Case Laws Flashcards
R v Ring - What was it about
Of note only
The accused was seen to hustle some women on a railway platform, and he put his hand in the pocket of one of them. The woman could not be located to give evidence, and accordingly there was no evidence that there was anything in her pocket to be stolen.
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.
R v Harpur - What was it about
Of note only
The defendant was involved in a series of text messages with a woman in which he described, in explicit detail, sexual acts that he wanted to perform on the woman’s 4-year-old niece.
He arranged for the girl to be brought to him for that purpose, however when he turned up at the agreed time and place he found that the girl did not in fact exist, and the arrangements were part of a ‘sting’ operation by Police. Harpur was charged with attempted sexual violation of the fictitious girl, as well as numerous sexual offences relating to other children.
In concluding that Harpur’s conduct was sufficiently proximate to the full offence, the Court of Appeal held that his actions need not be considered in isolation; sufficient evidence of his intent was available from the events leading up to that point.
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.”
Higgins v Police
Where plants being cultivated as cannabis are not in fact cannabis it is physically, not legally, impossible to cultivate such prohibited plants. Accordingly, it is possible to commit the offence of attempting to cultivate cannabis.
Police v Jay
A man bought hedge clippings believing they were cannabis.
R v Donnelly - What was it about?
(Of note only)
Legally impossible act
A suitcase containing stolen goods from a burglary was located by police at the luggage office of a railway station. Police recovered the property and returned it to the owner. Donnelly subsequently visited and presented a luggage ticket at the office and asked for the suitcase. The suitcase and stolen property could not be provided to him because it had already been returned to the rightful owner. Donnelly was initially charged with receiving stolen property, but convicted of an attempt to do so.
Following appeal it was held that, at the time Donnelly visited the railway station and presented the luggage ticket for the suitcase, police (acting as the owner’s agent) had retrieved the property and thereafter it ceased to be stolen property in accordance with s246(4) of the Crimes Act 1961.
Therefore, the court decided that despite Donnelly’s mens rea and actus reus, it was legally impossible for him to receive stolen property as those goods were no longer deemed to be stolen. His conviction was set aside.
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.
What are the 5 ‘must know’ case laws?
- R v Ring
- R v Harpur
- Higgins v Police
- Police v Jay
- R v Donnelly
