Attempts CIB 006

Question 1

R v Ring

Answer 1

In this case the offenders 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 an demonstrated by his actions. The remaining elements were also satisfied.

Question 2

R v Harpur

Answer 2

The court may have regard to the conduct viewed cumulitively up to the point where the conduct in question stops… the defendants conduct may be considered in its entirety.. considering how much remains to be done is always relevant though not determinative

Question 3

Police v Jay

Answer 3

A man bought hedge clippings beliving they were cannabis

Question 4

R v Donelly

Answer 4

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,.