Attempts- CRIMINAL LAW (1) Flashcards
Whats an attempt?
where a person tries to commit an offence but, for whatever reason , fails to complete it.
What does R v White show/principle
that D will be guilty of attempted murder if he tries to kill the V but fails.
D put poison in his elderly mothers tea
The law on attempts is governed and defined by which act
s1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981
What is the law on attemps
A defendant is guilty of an attempted offence if they do AN ACT which is MORE THAN MERE PREPARATION and have the INTENTION to commit the full offence.
What is the burden of proof
is on the prosecution to prove both the actus reus and mens rea for the attempted offence
what is the actus reus of an attempt
an act that is MORE THAN MERELY PREPARATORY to the COMMISSION of the main offence.
For an act to be more than merely prepartory, the defendant must do what…
embark upon the crime proper
what does commission mean
Commission means actively taking steps to commit a crime.
what does omission mean
Omission means failing to take action when there’s a duty to prevent a crime.
what case shows where D did go beyond mere preparation
R v Jones- shows that going beyond merely preparation is an attempt, the defendant must embark upon the crime proper.
D go into the Vs car and pointed gun- going beyond mere preparation.
What case shows where the D did not go beyond mere preparation
**R v Geddes- shows that if the D has not gone beyond mere preparation, they will not be guilty of an attempt.
D was found with rope, tape and a knife so he was equipped. charged with attempted false imprisonment
what is the men rea of an attempt
the DIRECT INTENT to commit the full offence
whats the case example for mens rea
R v Whybrow- for attempted murder the mens rea must be direct intent to kill only- intent to cause GBH is not enough.
What is conditional intention
did not use to be enough for the mens rea of an offence, however due to the decision in AG Ref (1979), it is now considered sufficient for the mens rea
e.g conditional intent would be the intent to steal only if there was anything worth stealing
what is the case example for the conditional intention and the principle
Attorney Generals reference (1979)
shows D can be guilty for an attempt if they only have conditional intent to commit a crime
Here D was caught attempting to burgle a house.
He stated that he only intended to steal if there was anything worth stealing in the house, so he has no intent to steal a specific thing.
CofA decided D has conditional intent (i.e. intent to steal if there was anything worth stealing).
Charged with attempted crime
what is recklessness
its not sufficient mens rea for an attempt
what is the case example for recklessness and the principle
R v Millard and Vernon
shows that if the accused is merely reckless, he will NOT be liable for an attempt
what does sttempting the impossible mean
where the attempted offence is impossible to carry out
what does the criminal attempts act 1981 S1(2) state and do
closed the loophole in the law- where in the old common law before this act if a crime was physically or legally impossible to commit, the D could NOT be guilty of attempting to commit.
Now a D can be guilty of attempting to do the impossible
what 2 cases illustrate attempting the impossible
R v Shivpuri
R v Jones
what does R v Shivpuri show/the principle
A D can be guilty of impossible crime if gone beyond mere preparation, even if the commission of the fully offence is impossible.
what case shows not attempting the impossible
R v Taafe
What does R v Taafe show/ the principle
Can’t be guilty if attempting an offence which isn’t an offence.
It is not a crime to import foreign currency
what is the A02 guidance for attempted offences and attempting the impossible
- state the attempted offence
- did D go beyond mere preparation and say why (ACTUS REUS)
- did D have the direct intention for the attempted crime (MENS REA)
- if the D was reckless explain why and that it is not sufficient for the mens rea
- is the D had conditional intention, state how you know this and that it is sufficient mens rea
- conclude if its a completed attempted offence
- state what the impossible crime the D has committed and why it was impossible
- did the D go beyond mere prep, if so? when
- did the D have the direct intention to commit the full offence? if so when and why do you know this
- conclude if D completed the impossible
