Attempts (Inchoate Offences) Flashcards
What is the actus reus of an attempt under the Criminal Attempts Act 1981?
A) Any act done with criminal intent
B) A preparatory act towards a crime
C) An act that causes harm but does not complete the offence
D) An act that is more than merely preparatory to committing a crime
D) An act that is more than merely preparatory to committing a crime
Explanation: The actus reus of an attempt is defined in section 1(1) Criminal Attempts Act 1981 as an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence. The jury determines whether the act has gone beyond preparation.
Which of the following cases ruled that merely waiting outside a post office with a fake gun was NOT an attempt?
A) R v Shivpuri
B) R v Whybrow
C) R v Campbell
D) R v Jones
C) R v Campbell
Explanation: In R v Campbell (1990), the defendant was found outside a post office with a fake gun and a threatening note, but had not entered the building or taken steps to commit the robbery. The court held that this was only preparatory and did not amount to an attempt.
What level of mens rea is required for an attempt?
A) Recklessness
B) Negligence
C) Intention to commit the full offence
D) Knowledge of the offence
C) Intention to commit the full offence
Explanation: A defendant must intend to commit the full offence for an attempt. Recklessness is not enough (R v Whybrow – attempted murder requires intent to kill, not just intent to cause GBH).
What is the legal principle from R v Shivpuri (1987)?
A) A defendant can be guilty of an attempt even if the full offence is impossible.
B) A defendant can only be guilty if the full offence is actually possible.
C) Conditional intent is not sufficient for an attempt.
D) Attempting a non-existent crime is still punishable.
A) A defendant can be guilty of an attempt even if the full offence is impossible.
Explanation: In R v Shivpuri, the defendant believed he was smuggling drugs, but the substance was harmless. The House of Lords confirmed impossibility is not a defence under s 1(2) CAA 1981.
Which of the following is NOT a type of impossibility?
A) Non-existent crime
B) Impossibility through inadequacy
C) Impossibility due to lack of intent
D) Impossibility in fact
C) Impossibility due to lack of intent
Explanation: Types of impossibility include non-existent crimes, impossibility through inadequacy, and impossibility in fact. However, lack of intent is not a form of impossibility; if intent is missing, there is simply no attempt.
D waits inside a school toilet with rope and tape, intending to kidnap a child, but does not approach anyone. Is this an attempt?
A) Yes, because he had the intent to commit the crime.
B) No, because he had not taken a more than merely preparatory step.
C) Yes, because he had prepared equipment to commit the crime.
D) No, because he changed his mind before committing the act.
B) No, because he had not taken a more than merely preparatory step.
Explanation: In R v Geddes (1996), similar facts led to a ruling that simply waiting with equipment was only preparatory and did not amount to an attempt.
D points a loaded gun at V’s head and pulls the trigger, but the gun jams. What offence has been committed?
A) No offence, as no harm was caused.
B) Criminal Damage
C) Assault with intent to cause GBH.
D) Attempted murder
D) Attempted murder.
Explanation: In R v Jones (1990), pointing a loaded gun at the victim was considered more than merely preparatory to murder. D clearly intended to kill.
D picks up a bag, intending to steal if there is something valuable inside. There is nothing, so he puts it back. What is the offence?
A) Attempted theft, because he intended to steal something if it was valuable.
B) No offence, because he did not actually take anything.
C) Criminal damage, because he touched the bag.
D) Burglary, because he entered a building with intent to steal.
A) Attempted theft, because he intended to steal something if it was valuable.
Explanation: AG’s Ref (Nos 1 & 2 of 1979) confirmed that conditional intent (intending to steal only if something valuable is found) still constitutes an attempt.
D tries to poison V with what he believes is cyanide, but it is actually sugar. What offence has been committed?
A) No offence, because it was impossible to poison V.
B) Attempted murder, because D had intent to kill.
C) Assault, because V was put in fear.
D) No offence, because no harm was caused.
B) Attempted murder, because D had intent to kill.
Explanation: Impossibility through inadequacy is no defence (s 1(2) CAA 1981). The defendant intended to kill using what he believed to be poison, making him guilty of attempted murder.
D believes it is illegal to import foreign currency and tries to smuggle money into the UK. The act is actually legal. What offence has been committed?
A) Attempted fraud.
B) Attempted money laundering.
C) No offence, because the act was not a crime.
D) Attempted tax evasion.
C) No offence, because the act was not a crime.
Explanation: In R v Taaffe (1983), the defendant mistakenly believed he was committing a crime. Attempting a non-existent crime is not an offence.
